On 03/12/10 10:19 AM, Don Cragun wrote:
> On Mar 11, 2010, at 10:45 PM, 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. :-)
>>
>> - Garrett
>>
> No. That is not what the case says. Quoting from the original
> materials:
> 1. From your intro to the case: "Binding is patch."
> 2. From the interface table in the case (section 5): "All the interfaces
> described below will be obsoleted in Solaris 10." (This is fine with
> a patch binding.)
> 3. From the interface table in the case (section 5): "MySQL 4.0 binaries
> from /usr/sfw/bin will be removed:", "MySQL 4.0 libraries from
> /usr/sfw/lib will be removed:", "MySQL 4.0 man pages from
> /usr/sfw/man/man1 will be removed:", "MySQL 4.0 include files from
> /usr/sfw/mysql/include will be removed including the entire
> directory.", "MySQL 4.0 tests in /usr/sfw/mysql will be removed,
> including the entire directory.", and "MySQL 4.0 I18N and config
> files at /usr/sfw/share/mysql/ will be removed, including the entire
> directory, and the file /usr/sfw/share/info/mysql.info". (These all
> need a minor release binding; not a patch binding.)
>
> - Don
>
Okay, but in the subsequent conversation, it seems pretty clear that
what is intended is what I said; confirmation mail from project team
(above) indicates this as well.
So regardless of what the original mail said, the case at hand is
announce EOF in S10, remove in Nevada.
The "binding" on this is Patch for the announce, and Minor for the
removal. Do we really need the project to resubmit the materials to
make that any more explicit?
- Garrett
