>>>>> "meem" == Peter Memishian <peter.memishian at sun.com> writes:
meem> In other words, we're really just pushing the problem around. I don't think that's true if the move is done skillfully. I agree that if the foo code depends on private interfaces that are exported by something else in ON, then foo is a bad candidate to move. And I think that if foo is something we own, it's not as good a candidate as something that we just repackage from upstream. (I don't have a list of things that we just repackage, but my understanding is that Perl falls into that category.) I also agree that if we just throw a pile of stuff into SFW, we would just reproduce the problem in SFW. But the existing consolidation organization is not set in stone. Making ON smaller would also help by reducing build time. And it would reduce the porting burden for code that we do get regular upstream updates for, in that the ON makefile structure is almost certainly different from upstream's. I'm not saying that putting ON on a diet is sufficient to solve the push contention problem. I don't even think it's necessary for solving that problem. But I do think it would help with the push contention problem, and I think it would be a good thing to do in general. (Along with the several hundred other things on our list of good things to do, I suppose. :-/) mike
