> > In that case I see no benefit from the changes being proposed and I > > don't think this should be integrated.
I agree. > If there is more to come that > > will speed up nightly to a point where it is actually noticable (I > > really doubt it some how) I'd like to see a least an overview of that. > > 1. Please read > http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=407842#407842 Who exactly is clamoring for ksh93 statements in the opensolaris.sh config file? > 2. With the retirement of SXCE and the switch to Indiana we will get the > switch from ksh88 to ksh93 implicitly. However I would prefoer to do the > switch _now_ in a controlled and tested way instead of running into > problems like CR #6872747 ("nightly's total build time calculation is > b0rked") repeatedly. Plenty of developers are already building using the existing nightly with ksh93. Problems like the one you cite above are cosmetic and do not interfere with development. On the other hand, large changes like what you are ultimately proposing (not just with this first wad) are much more likely to cause serious problems -- and as more obscure ksh93 incantations get added, it will be increasingly hard for others to understand and fix these problems. Our goal for nightly should be to make it simpler to understand, not to rewrite it in a language few in our community have expertise in. -- meem _______________________________________________ opensolaris-code mailing list opensolaris-code@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
