* Mike Kupfer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-01-11 10:51]: > >>>>> "sch" == Stephen Hahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > sch> Sounds fine. Are you talking about the theoretical case when all > sch> releases under discussion are open development (or at least open > sch> source), or today's case where only SMI has a collection of > sch> previous releases? > > Neither. I'm talking about something in the middle, where there are two > open source/development releases (an old one and a current one).
Okay, that seems tractable. > sch> It is not clear to me whether the "open development" versus "open > sch> source" discussion has been had with respect to ongoing > sch> sustaining and maintenance of older releases of the code bases we > sch> have. > > I'll agree with that. But it strikes me as part of the release endgame > discussion, or at least very closely related. I agree for the "both sides open" case. > sch> the coordination Mike is asking for (or asking to persist), if > sch> made formal, requires Sun's sustaining organization to have a > sch> place at a table otherwise only occupied by community members. > > That would only be true if I were interested in the non-open Solaris > releases, correct? Yes. - 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
