"Hier ist die offizielle Dokumentation, echte Systemhelden jedoch kommen mit nur
zwei man-Pages aus: zpool und zfs."
- Constantin Gonzalez (loosely translated as 'Here is the
official documentation; real system heroes need only the
two manpages: zpool and zfs'
==
> Derek Cicero announced [1] that build 56 of SXCR was now available. Steve Lau
> announced [2] that build 57 of ON was available.
>
> 1.
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-announce/2007-January/000883.html
> 2.
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-announce/2007-February/000885.html
>
> Steve Lau announced [3] that he was in the process of updating Mercurial on
> the
> server from 0.9 to 0.9.3, and recommended that every should upgrade
> accordingly.
>
> 3.
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-announce/2007-February/000884.html
>
> Glynn Foster asked [4] if the election schedule has slipped for the OGB
> elections. Stephen Hahn replied [5] that the outstanding decision to make was
> whether the ratification of the constitution could be bundled with the
> election
> of the board. Keith Wesolowski followed up [6][7] to say that these types of
> scenarios weren't uncommon. Glynn wrote [8] a draft email for the
> announcement,
> while Stephen wrote [9] a draft voting ballot. Ian Collins asked [10] if the
> voting list was a little too restrictive on only being open for Core
> Contributors. Stephen followed up [11] that anyone feeling like they should be
> on the list should contact either existing Core Contributors or OGB members
> with
> their case. John Plocher expanded [12] on the difficulties in choosing an
> initial list of members, in the case of the ARC community.
>
> 4. http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/cab-discuss/2007-January/001410.html
> 5. http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/cab-discuss/2007-January/001411.html
> 6. http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/cab-discuss/2007-January/001420.html
> 7. http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/cab-discuss/2007-January/001421.html
> 8. http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/cab-discuss/2007-January/001418.html
> 9.
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/cab-discuss/2007-February/001437.html
> 10.
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/cab-discuss/2007-February/001440.html
> 11.
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/cab-discuss/2007-February/001446.html
> 12.
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/cab-discuss/2007-February/001455.html
>
> Steve Lau mailed [13] about the putback policy for future Hg putbacks,
> suggesting that the current policy should be preserved, with no restriction on
> the number of changesets fixed per changegroup though having an emphasis of
> fixing bugs in different changesets. Steve also mailed [14] about the use of
> keywords in Hg, looking for feedback about removing those that didn't make
> sense and porting others to new formats.
>
> 13.
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/tools-discuss/2007-January/003278.html
> 14.
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/tools-discuss/2007-January/003289.html
>
> Linda Bernal posted [15] the OpenSolaris community newsletter for December and
> January.
>
> 15.
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/program-team/2007-February/000482.html
>
> Casper Dik mailed [16] to say that he had updated the acpidrv and powernow
> drivers, adding Intel Enhanced SpeedStep support for powernow. This syncs the
> drivers with what is currently available internally within Sun.
>
> 16.
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/laptop-discuss/2007-February/004593.html
>
> Peter Buckingham proposed [17] a new project for Honeycomb, a unique archival
> storage product developed within Sun. The intention for the project is to
> initially upload the whitepaper and some documentation to be followed by the
> SDK and Honeycomb emulator, to allow people to start developing applications
> with Honeycomb in mind. Steve Lau replied [18] that he had hesitations about
> the
> project, given that there was no source initially, with a suggestion [19] to
> how
> the project approval process may be changed. Eric Boutilier mailed [20] with
> concerns about how it may prevent out of the box ideas, while Mike Kupfer
> believed [20] that the OGB shouldn't need to get involved in the day-to-day
> running of the community from this perspective.
>
> 17.
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-discuss/2007-January/023803.html
> 18.
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-discuss/2007-January/023842.html
> 19.
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-discuss/2007-February/024885.html
> 20.
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-discuss/2007-February/024890.html
> 21.
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-discuss/2007-February/024892.html
>
> Erast Benson mailed [22] congratulating Sun on the recent open sourcing of the
> e1000g driver.
>
> 22.
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-discuss/2007-January/024182.html
>
> Doug Scott proposed [23] a new project for the XFCE desktop, a lightweight
> environment built using GTK+ currently available in the companion CD.
>
> 23.
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-discuss/2007-February/024736.html
>
> Stephen Harpster mailed [24] asking for people's opinions on dual-licensing
> OpenSolaris with GPLv3, by attaching an 'assembly exception'. Glynn Foster
> replied [25] asking for clarification of some of the scenarios where people
> would likely to mix code, mentioning also that there were more serious
> concerns
> over infrastructure that would be better to fix first. Darren Moffat
> reiterated
> [26] the concerns that many had, especially the complexity of having to deal
> with 2 licenses. Stephen followed up [27] detailing some of the scenarios,
> detailing [28] what positives might come out of such a move especially if the
> wider free software community did adopt the new license.
>
> 24.
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-discuss/2007-January/023879.html
> 25.
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-discuss/2007-January/023904.html
> 26.
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-discuss/2007-January/023973.html
> 27.
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-discuss/2007-January/023998.html
> 28.
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-discuss/2007-January/024005.html
>
> Bryan Cantrill pointed out [29] that the CDDL was a major reason that Apple
> adopted
> a DTrace port, pointing out that dual-licensing only adds to the existing
> problems
> of high barrier to entry in that it introduces the possibilities of
> unresolvable forks
> [30], prompted after reading Stephen O'Grady's [31] summary of the situation.
> Simon
> Phipps hinted [32] at the possibility of the FSF [33] of promoting Solaris
> above other
> operating systems if the move to GPLv3 went ahead, following up [34] with
> some
> background information of what they might bring to the table. Stephen
> Harpster argued
> [35] that a fork was less likely due to the intricasies of the source space,
> and
> experienced engineers required to maintain such a fork. Stephen re-iterated
> that
> dropping CDDL completely for GPLv3 was not an issue as it would alienate the
> existing community. Roy Fielding mailed [36] giving some reality on the
> current
> situation with the binding 3 principles the CAB had hoped to achieve 2 years
> ago that haven't yet been successful; common VCS, common issue system, and
> making
> decisions on a public list. Roy also provided some background information from
> the Apache foundation, detailing some potential pitfalls.
>
> 29.
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-discuss/2007-January/024033.html
> 30.
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-discuss/2007-February/024728.html
> 31. http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2007/02/03/solaris_gplv3/
> 32.
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-discuss/2007-January/024194.html
> 33. http://www.fsf.org/
> 34.
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-discuss/2007-February/024536.html
> 35.
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-discuss/2007-February/024350.html
> 36.
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-discuss/2007-February/024916.html
>
> John Sonnenschein proposed [37] a project to rewrite libc_i18n.a, a necessary
> component to build a complete OS from completely open source components.
>
> 37.
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-discuss/2007-February/024377.html
>
> Erast Benson mailed [38] to say that Nexenta would now be available as a
> series
> of unstable ISOs, in a hope to improve quality of development releases.
>
> 38.
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-discuss/2007-February/024394.html
>
> Dave Miner mailed [39] to say that he had imported the latest sources for the
> livemedia kit work into Hg, with updates from snv55 well on their way.
>
> 39.
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/livemedia-discuss/2007-February/000040.html
>
> Robert Milkowski mailed [40] some interesting benchmarks for the performance
> of
> realloc() between Solaris and Linux, concluding that Solaris would benefit
> from
> the implementation of mremap().
>
> 40.
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/perf-discuss/2007-January/001587.html
>
> Steve Lau announced [41] that the ON Hg bridge was now online again, after
> some
> massive regeneration.
>
> 41.
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-code/2007-February/004091.html
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
