On 3/12/10 6:24 AM, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > On 03/11/10 03:17 PM, Don Cragun wrote: >> On Mar 11, 2010, at 11:42:30 -0800, Garrett D'Amore wrote: >> >>> SInce nobody else has said so explicitly yet, +1 on the case, and +1 on >>> just needing the single case. (I.e. I'm +1'ing both the announce in S10 >>> and the removal in OpenSolaris.) >>> >>> - Garrett >> Garrett, >> I think you're missing the point. The case as written announces the >> removal of MySQL 4.0 from S10 and removes MySQL 4.0 from S10 as a >> patch. I believe everyone that has commented so far would be happy >> if the case announced the future removal with a patch or micro binding, >> but had a minor release binding for the actual removal of the product >> rather than a patch binding. >> >> Removing an old, supported interface as part in a patch is NOT >> appropriate! > > Oh, I misread that... I thought the case was only proposing to announce > the removal in S10. Actually *removing* it in S10 is not really > appropriate, removing it in the next release is fine. > > So I'm going to have to retract the +1 that relates to the removal in > S10. A removal in SNV is OK. (Assuming it already hasn't happened.) > > - Garrett >> - Don > Hi all,
no, please -- the case really wants to *remove* MySQL 4 from *SNV* and only *obsolete* MySQL 4 in *S10*. That's it. If later on it is possible to remove MySQL from S10 then this will be certainly desired but this is not goal of this case. Thanks, Luksa
