Garrett D'Amore wrote: > And if the case owners decline to withdraw? > > We can suggest, but as I understand it, the only action we have > available to us formally as part of a fast track (besides +1'ing or > remaining silent) is to derail. > > The tool may be useful, but so are a great many others. Does it have > any tie-in(s) to other parts of the system?
I'm not opposed to the project, but I do think it'd be much simpler if we had a higher-level (say, "architectural") review of the delivery mechanisms themselves. In reviewing the Brownian motion of little open source packages from one repository to another, I think we're really missing the big picture of what the repository inclusion rules are, what things depend on what other things, and ultimately what bits constitute "the system." With that part sorted out, I suspect that we won't need any of these confusing 's/SFW/contrib/' project reviews, because the answers become quite obvious self-reviews (with zero paperwork). Without the big picture, we're down to repeating the same discussion over and over, and producing uneven results when some things fall through without substantial review and others get nit-picked. We went through this trouble once before, back when we larded up SFW with random bits. And when (not "if" but "when") there's another realignment of repositories, we'll have another flurry of confusing and disjoint little projects that really have very little architectural content in themselves. Is there any reason that all of these "FOSS" projects need to be done piecemeal? -- James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ opensolaris-arc mailing list [email protected]
