Stephen Hahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * 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.
Ah. For the purposes of Indiana, I don't believe they've made enough changes to the more basic aspects of the system that tracking them separately and merging them to 'real' bugs makes sense in any real fashion (a bug in audio810 will be in ON also, for instance.) For a real migration, solutions need to be found for many things, but completely segregating indiana's bugs is incorrect. This problem gets even worse for a real migration, I'm not at all sure how it can be solved well. >> 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. No, it was merely a general point. I'm not sure where you see the inequality, assuming you mean between the two paragraphs, I believe it will have to be done for a period of time, and I think it will be chaotic for all concerned. The difference is merely whether that chaos is prolonged. -- Rich _______________________________________________ tools-discuss mailing list [email protected]
