On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 23:01, Dan Price wrote:
Thumbs down to the currently proposed community. Sorry guys :(
I've been following this discussion, and it seems to me that one problem
we have is that the current communities are focussed around subject
areas,
and we don't differentiate by
On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 06:09:38PM +, Peter Tribble wrote:
I've been following this discussion, and it seems to me that one problem
we have is that the current communities are focussed around subject
areas,
and we don't differentiate by audience. So how do we address the needs
of
Alan Coopersmith writes:
There is already a separate community for networking, so if we go that
route I think this community should just be for the OS part.
Then you'ld have to define OS. The official definition of the Solaris
Operating System is the entire WOS, from kernel through
On Thu 03/16/06 at 17:13 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Things were setup that way before projects existed and everything had to be
a community. The Nevada community (which is misnamed to begin with),
should
become a ONNV project of an ON community which could also host your
internals
Jim,
Operating System is the entire WOS, from kernel through desktop and servers,
all the consolidations, so presumably you're thinking of the subset of ON
that's not networking. Maybe Core OS or something?
Even at that, I think it's really quite vague and likely implicitly
refers to
Eric Lowe writes:
A really rough strawman might look something like the following community
structure in place of core OS:
kernel
user commands
libraries
but that's not perfect either.
No, it's not.
I suppose the problem is that we've really got overlapping sets here,
and
Eric Lowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Continuing down that path without providing a more general technical forum
means that if I want to keep up on the state of the art of the system
internals, I have to drown in non-technical information and discussion.
Linux, NetBSD, FreeBSD, and others have
Eric Lowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What about file systems? Why have ZFS and UFS communities (and possibly
NFS in the future) instead of one file system community with three file
system projects under it?
Speaking of which, it occured to me recently, when I posted a question
about the
On Fri, Rainer Orth wrote:
Eric Lowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What about file systems? Why have ZFS and UFS communities (and possibly
NFS in the future) instead of one file system community with three file
system projects under it?
Speaking of which, it occured to me recently, when
Spencer Shepler writes:
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=6717tstart=0
Just FYI, the response is forthcoming; the person that was
drafting something has been a little swamped.
Great, thanks. Anyway, I hope someone finds the suggested reorganization
useful
Rainer Orth wrote:
Eric Lowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What about file systems? Why have ZFS and UFS communities (and possibly
NFS in the future) instead of one file system community with three file
system projects under it?
Speaking of which, it occured to me recently, when I posted a
We would like to propose a solaris-internals community. The initial
leaders would be Jonathan Chew, Eric Lowe, Eric Saxe, and me. We hope to
expand this list quickly, with engineers from inside of Sun and from the
community.
There are quite a few communities dedicated to specific parts of
Nils Nieuwejaar wrote:
The solaris-internals community would host one or more discussion groups.
Initially there would just be a single group: solaris-internals. If the
traffic warranted, we could create more specific discussions within the
group. Some possible child discussions might be
On Thu 03/16/06 at 11:12 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nils Nieuwejaar wrote:
The solaris-internals community would host one or more discussion groups.
Initially there would just be a single group: solaris-internals. If the
traffic warranted, we could create more specific discussions within
* Nils Nieuwejaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-03-16 10:49]:
We would like to propose a solaris-internals community. The initial
leaders would be Jonathan Chew, Eric Lowe, Eric Saxe, and me. We hope to
expand this list quickly, with engineers from inside of Sun and from the
community.
There
I believe this proposal needs to provide further contrasts against
existing communities and projects to make aspects more clear.
opensolaris-discuss is too broad an audience for internals discussions.
opensolaris-code I thought was meant to cover code topics and questions,
but has been
* Nils Nieuwejaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-03-16 12:37]:
On Thu 03/16/06 at 11:30 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. What is the relationship between this community and the existing ON
(Nevada) community? Why is that alias, or a second alias (or
project) not appropriate for
* Stephen Hahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-03-16 14:19]:
My concern here was more connected with the fact that these
grandfathered aliases exist and overlap (to whatever degree). I
think I would like to hear about how to eventually close some of the
program-wide aliases, as consolidations
Nils Nieuwejaar wrote:
2. What is the relationship between this community and the existing ON
(Nevada) community? Why is that alias, or a second alias (or
project) not appropriate for hosting this content? (Why not
[EMAIL PROTECTED])
The Nevada community seems to be
On Thu 16 Mar 2006 at 02:19PM, Stephen Hahn wrote:
* Nils Nieuwejaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-03-16 12:37]:
On Thu 03/16/06 at 11:30 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. What is the relationship between this community and the existing ON
(Nevada) community? Why is that alias, or a
Things were setup that way before projects existed and everything had to be
a community. The Nevada community (which is misnamed to begin with),
should
become a ONNV project of an ON community which could also host your
internals
information.
... and proposed discussion list(s).
Agreed,
Eric Lowe wrote:
So let me propose:
- Rename and refactor the 'onnv' community into 'os-net' or some
such. Remove its logical binding to the nevada release train.
There is already a separate community for networking, so if we go that
route I think this community should
Then you'ld have to define OS. The official definition of the
Solaris Operating System is the entire WOS, from kernel through desktop
and servers,
all the consolidations, so presumably you're thinking of the subset of ON
that's not networking. Maybe Core OS or something?
Yes, core OS -
6370879 was filed on this, but hasn't
been implemented yet.
-Michelle
X-Original-To: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Delivered-To: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 17:13:55 -0600
From: Eric Lowe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Community proposal: solaris
24 matches
Mail list logo
