On 3/12/10 7:45 AM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> On 03/11/10 10:09 PM, Lukas Rovensky wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Okay, so that's what I *thought* I was +1'ing. So you have my +1. :-)
>
Great, thanks :-) ... Lukas
