On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 05:01:29PM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote: > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 3:01 PM, Joseph Kowalski <jek3 at sun.com> wrote: > > 2) Go back to the original FOSS integration cases. > > There was significant discussion about this. It was > > decided that Sun had no right to make quality > > judgments about the quality of FOSS contributions > > relative to Sun contributions. (OK, we made a > > black/white judgment beyond including it or not, > > but nothing more.) > > I wasn't part of that discussion, but the items I've seen presented > here so far have nothing to do with quality, and everything to do with > user expectations. > > As a developer / admin, I expect all tools that Sun ships or claims to > "support" to fully support all Solaris functionality. > > If I am given a tool to synchronise files, and not warned about its > deficiencies relative to Solaris support, I would be one very unhappy > customer when it didn't work as expected. >
you seem to think that as a developer/admin, you're somehow entitled to have higher expectations for software we ship. it's actually the other way around. since you are a developer/admin, i think it's resonable for "us" (the people shipping the software) to expect you to read the documentation and figure out if a tool is appropriate for the job you want to do. no tool i know of can read your mind to figure out how you expect it to work. this is the whole reason that we try to publish good documentation. the architectual (if you can call it that) take away from this entire discussion is that we simply add a comment to the unison man page saying that it doesn't support hard links, there by allowing you to adjust your expectations accordingly. ed
