Joerg Schilling wrote:
I read this on a regular base but what I did read did not look
to an open discussion process to me. The result was fixed by Sun
before the discussion started and this is why I did not join this discussion.
On the basis of what evidence?
Based on my impression.
That's not how you stated it originally - you stated it as a fact - "The
result was fixed by Sun before the discussion started".
I can assure you it wasn't fixed, and that Hg was chosen as a result of
an open and fair process - and I say that as someone who doesn't
actually *like* Hg all that much.
If Sun did like a real and open discussion, this "discission" did not
start before SCCS and Teamware has been made OpenSource.
Teamware was on the initial candidate list - see
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/tools/scm/history/ and
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=16642. However an
essential requirement for any candidate was that it was Open Source, see
item E0 of
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/tools/scm/dscmreqdoc/, and
Teamware wasn't. Steps were made to try to rectify this - see
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=16642#24681, and
an evaluation of "OpenTeamware" was performed - see
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=26805梵.
However, it appears the "OpenTeamware" binaries were not made available
outside of Sun, and the source code was also never made available.
In the face of that evidence, I don't think that it is fair to assert
that the result was fixed by Sun.
The fact that this is still not the case (for Teamware) causes the impression
to me that it was no really possible to have an "open" discussion with respect
to "open end". Please note that I do not contribute to a discussion that does
not allow me to influence the result.
If you don't participate in a discussion, your generally forfeit your
right to complain about the results of it afterwards, in my experience.
Teamware has been written by Larry McVoy and it should not be a problem to make
it OSS, but I believe that we may not even need Teamware at all if we did
enhance SCCS the was I did describe recently.
Now that SCCS is OSS and I did have a look at it and ported it to all other
major platforms, I would guess that it takes about 1-2 Man Months to add the
features we would need for OpenSolaris. This would allow to keep the old
SCCS history. If you did miss the proposal for the SCCS enhancements, I could
repost it.
The fact is that Teamware had been EOL'd by Sun before OpenSolaris
started - see http://docs.sun.com/source/816-7532/relnote40.html,
"Removal of Features", and it was well recognised within the Sun Solaris
community that we needed to move to something else, and OpenSolaris
moved the switch up the priority list. Although Teamware was included
in the SCM evaluation, it failed to meet the required criteria and was
therefore discarded. In my opinion, that doesn't equate to "The result
was fixed by Sun before the discussion started".
--
Alan Burlison
--
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
