On Sat, 30 Jul 2005, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > At this point, it is clear you guys were not paying attention > to the contents of the thread. The disagreement is over the > community having the ability to work on a branch that is not > stable. All of the Solaris releases would be on a stable branch > that has the exact same interface stability requirements as it > does right now, for the same reasons that you described. The > difference is that the community *outside* Sun can do visible > work within OpenSolaris rather than having to create private > forks of the community, and Sun could back-port the compatible > portions of that work to the stable tree according to its own > review processes.
Having been away from my mail for 5 days, and carefully digesting (with great interest) this thread in one sitting, it seems to distill down to two key premises: - The CAB is the arbiter of what (the entirety of) OpenSolaris will become. - Sun's architecture and product committees are the arbiters of what Nevada (SunOS 5.next) and its successors will become. And from these premises, I get these conclusions: 1. Currently Nevada is the sole "OpenSolaris branch" not by decree, but by default. After the CAB governance is finalized, it will be by decree. In other words, Nevada will be a CAB-blessed, stable branch of OpenSolaris. 2. In addition to Nevada, at least one other CAB-blessed, stable branch should be created (ASAP I hope) to accomodate community developers for whom backwards compatibility is not a #1 priority. 3. Developers will be highly motivated to work on their unstable branches and other projects on opensolaris.org because they will want their work to become part of one or more of the CAB-blessed, stable branches. Eric _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
