Petr Sumbera wrote:
> Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>> Architecturally, this sounds like a good thing. My main concerns
>> here really relate to notification of potential vendors and
>> consumers. While that's not architectural (its a C-Team issue), its
>> still interesting. Do we have any sense of who's using these features.
>
> Not sure here. We got recently one escalation for S10 which made us to
> act. But it was probably first since S10 was released.
>
>> Note that PSARC 2000/040 specified the jserv files as Stable.
>> Personally, I think this was probably in error, given that it was
>> tracking an open source effort without a proven track record. I
>> believe this EOF therefore requires some "extra effort" to ensure
>> that no negative impacts are felt within the software we ship, that
>> there is extra effort made to inform users of this impending EOF, and
>> that the project team has made a good faith effort to identify what
>> external consumers, if any, are going to be busted by this.
>
> Agree. Will ask SFW C-Team to double check.
Thanks.
>> Indeed, this begs a question: wouldn't it simply be easier to remove
>> mod_jserv with the removal of Apache 1.3.x. I'm assuming that if
>> we've not already EOF'd Apache 1.3 in favor of 2.0, that we will do
>> so at some point in the future?
>
> Simple removal of JServ seemed to be easier, faster and less
> controversial. So that question of EOF Apache 1.3 is beyond this case.
> But yes there are from time to time some discussions which might lead
> to it.
I'm not sure that its much less controversial for Solaris
Nevada/Next. It seems like EOF of 1.3 is something that ought to
occur at about this time, and that the time is ripe for it. (Apache has
both Apache 2.0 and Apache 2.2 as release trains available at this time
-- so 1.3 is actually two releases behind schedule -- continuing to ship
it makes about as much sense as continuing to ship Gnome 1.x -- actually
less since ISV software generally doesn't dynamically link against the
Apache server.)
I think personally, I'd rather go through just a single EOF process than
go through two of them.
>
>> Btw, I'm assuming this is meant for Minor binding, as its not
>> appropriate IMO for a Patch release.
>
> Correct.
Ok.
-- Garrett
>
> Petr
