[Removed case number from subject line to avoid having this whole off-topic discussion ending up in the 'star' case log. (Wasn't there just a "manners" posting on something like this ... ?)]
George Shepherd writes: > One thing which WILL help IMO is to get a clear division between > core cases and cases which are for non-core repositories. > That way at least we can keep the most arcane process for the core > and liberalize the the interactions most of the community will > engage in. Getting to that point means first getting agreement that there is such an important and lasting distinction, and that it has architectural review implications. I don't think everyone necessarily agrees with both parts of that. In particular, what is considered "core" does change over time. It wasn't too long ago that windowing systems and even networking were considered "non-core" parts. Some think development tools are "non-core" as well ... while others are just as convinced that they're core features. (Whyohwhy did they have to break /usr/bin/cc?) I suspect it's hard to predict with any certainty how those notions must evolve over time. Worse still, there are various groups -- let's call 'em distributors for lack of a better term -- who think they have some control over what gets deemed "core" and "not-core" in their realm. (I suspect you're assuming a single IPS repository for all consumers, and I think that might not be true ... at least it's not part of the system architecture today.) The implication of all of that is that we can't necessarily just wave our hands at what we (or contributors) designate as non-core parts and hope for the best. I don't know what the right fix is here, but I'm not sure I agree with you that this simple division is it. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
