* Richard Lowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-10-30 21:44]: > Stephen Hahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > [adding tools-discuss to Cc, since this is a general DTS-ish thing] > > > * Richard Lowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-10-30 20:33]: > >> Alan Coopersmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > >> > Patrick Finch wrote: > >> >> I'd suggest something relating to X server problems. I seldom have > >> >> problems with Solaris, but I very often have X.org conf problems with > >> >> Linux distros. > >> > > >> > In the current bugtraq db, X problems go under solaris/xserver/* > >> > (which I've long wanted to rename to solaris/x11/*, since it covers > >> > more than just the server, and having solaris/xserver/server and > >> > solaris/xserver/client_libs just seem silly). > >> > >> The tricky bit, for these purposes, is that only Indiana bugs should > >> be tracked in whatever set up you devise, generic bugs in opensolaris > >> components *must* continue to live in the correct places > >> (bugtraq/b.o.o, right now). > > > > I'm not sure so of that, if we select a community DTS. I would expect > > RTI and related processes to be adjusted for two defect systems. > > Well, as I've said previously, I firmly believe that two disparate > systems is a recipe for chaos, and will work out badly. > I had thought your original plan was a slow migration to a single > system, such as to avoid that to the largest degree possible. A slow migration still involves two systems running; my reaction is to your "must continue" point.
> We can't run two disconnected systems side by side indefinitely > without causing more problems that we fix. I'm not sure I agree with this inequality but... no one ever said anything about indefinitely doing something. In any case, certain tools and processes will need to be able to deal with sets of defects described in one of the two systems. - Stephen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.sun.com/sch/ _______________________________________________ tools-discuss mailing list [email protected]
