On 3/12/10 8:00 PM, Don Cragun wrote:
>
> On Mar 12, 2010, at 10:36 AM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>
Aha -- I wondered what made you to think that the case says remove from
S10. As the section 1.4 says:
" This FastTrack will EOL the MySQL 4.0 from OpenSolaris and obsolete
MySQL 4.0 interfaces in Solaris 10."
I thought that it is clear that all the "removing" is really just about
removing from Nevada. So, perhaps to make things clearer I should have
used wording in section 5 like the following:
"All the interfaces described below will be obsoleted in Solaris 10.
MySQL 4.0 binaries from /usr/sfw/bin will be removed *from
OpenSolaris / SNV*:"
>> 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.
>
> Hi Garrett,
> The above statement is all I need. This is the first time you (the
Thanks.
Lukas
> case owner) or the project team has explicitly stated the change to
> the release binding presented in the original case materials.
> (Someone on the project team earlier said they "would accept" this
> change, but never said that the change to the case materials was
> requested by the project team.)
>
> I'm a standards guy; the paperwork is important to me. ;-}
>
> - Don
>
>>
>> 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
