* Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-01-11 10:38]: > Stephen Hahn wrote: > >* Mike Kupfer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-01-11 10:25]: > >>>>>>>"sch" == Stephen Hahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>sch> I'm quite happy with the discussion, although my inclination is > >>sch> to get the immediate term issue resolved and then spend some time > >>sch> thinking about how the endgame of a specific release is handled. > >> > >>For the endgame issue, please include the question of how old releases > >>will be managed. I'm particularly concerned about security fixes, where > >>we currently try to have at least a preliminary patch ready at the time > >>a security flaw is announced. > > > > Sounds fine. Are you talking about the theoretical case when all > > releases under discussion are open development (or at least open > > source), or today's case where only SMI has a collection of previous > > releases? > > The case were all releases are open source and there are no longer any > SMI only previous releases is by my rough calculation a minimum of 12 > years away but more likely 15 years.
(It was a leading question.) It is not clear to me whether the "open development" versus "open source" discussion has been had with respect to ongoing sustaining and maintenance of older releases of the code bases we have. In particular, the coordination Mike is asking for (or asking to persist), if made formal, requires Sun's sustaining organization to have a place at a table otherwise only occupied by community members. That's interesting. - Stephen -- Stephen Hahn, PhD Solaris Kernel Development, Sun Microsystems [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.sun.com/sch/ _______________________________________________ opensolaris-code mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
