[request-sponsor] Bugid - 4968927
Questions and comments not necessarily targeted at Ashwin here: On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 12:24:14PM +0530, ashwin wrote: Hi all My SCA # is OS0144 I would like to request a sponsor for Bug Id 4968927 the comment for EPERM error should match in the following two files /onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/uts/common/sys/errno.h and /onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/lib/libc/port/gen/errlist Changing both the comments for EPERM to Not owner sounds more appropriate than Not super-user diff is :- --- errno.h.orig Sun Dec 16 12:30:05 2007 +++ errno.h Sun Dec 16 12:31:25 2007 @@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ * Error codes */ -#define EPERM 1 /* Not super-user */ +#define EPERM 1 /* Not owner*/ #define ENOENT 2 /* No such file or directory*/ #define ESRCH 3 /* No such process */ #define EINTR 4 /* interrupted system call */ I know this isn't the right place for comments on the actual work, but where is? These should arguably both be changed to something like Permission denied if they can be safely changed as neither not super-user nor not owner are necessarily going to be correct. Finally, is it expected that someone requesting a sponsor have a patch that they consider final to be done, or is a WIP allowed? Ceri -- That must be wonderful! I don't understand it at all. -- Moliere -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available URL: http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/request-sponsor/attachments/20071216/23a53269/attachment.bin
[request-sponsor] Bugid - 4968927
Oh Yes Ceri. Wat you said is right :) These should arguably both be changed to something like Permission denied if they can be safely changed as neither not super-user nor not owner are necessarily going to be correct. -- Regards Ashwin
[request-sponsor] Bugid - 4968927
Ceri Davies wrote: Finally, is it expected that someone requesting a sponsor have a patch that they consider final to be done, or is a WIP allowed? Ceri It can be either. And it can also be the case that they haven't started at all. When you make a request for sponsor, it is effectively reserving that bug for you to work on. You may need the help of the sponsor to understand what is going on, you may end up teaching the sponsor something, etc. Your fix might undergo several revisions - there are harder bugs out there than the simple typos. But it is very much like what happens when I take a bug internally. I may not have a clue about what is going on, but by putting my name on it, I am telling other people that they should not duplicate my efforts.
[request-sponsor] Bugid - 4968927
On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 10:03:24AM -0600, Tom Haynes wrote: Ceri Davies wrote: Finally, is it expected that someone requesting a sponsor have a patch that they consider final to be done, or is a WIP allowed? Ceri It can be either. And it can also be the case that they haven't started at all. When you make a request for sponsor, it is effectively reserving that bug for you to work on. You may need the help of the sponsor to understand what is going on, you may end up teaching the sponsor something, etc. Your fix might undergo several revisions - there are harder bugs out there than the simple typos. But it is very much like what happens when I take a bug internally. I may not have a clue about what is going on, but by putting my name on it, I am telling other people that they should not duplicate my efforts. Ah, I see; I had misunderstood the process in that case. Thanks for clarifying! Ceri -- That must be wonderful! I don't understand it at all. -- Moliere -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available URL: http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/request-sponsor/attachments/20071216/9bc3de84/attachment.bin
