Peter Memishian wrote:
 > > I was wondering about this too.  Indeed, there seems be a sizeable amount
 > > of duplicated code now.  Why is this the right design?
> > Because the sn1 brand is an internal brand for testing
 > and is not delivered to customers.  Once the solaris10
 > brand is integrated, the sn1 brand will no longer serve
 > its original role and could even be removed from the source
 > tree if we wanted to.

I don't see how that addresses the primary point, which is that Solaris
brands seem to suffer from code duplication.  Are you asserting that the
amount of code duplication between the sn1 and solaris10 brands is unique
to that situation and is not something that will occur again when we cons
up the next solarisX brand?

Yes.  If we were to ship another brand that was
fundamentally similar to the solaris10 brand (e.g. the solaris9
brand on Solaris Next), then I think it would make sense for
that project to try to make more of the code common with the
then currently shipping solaris10 brand.  However, I don't think
that is necessary for a brand we don't ship (but I can also
understand if you don't agree with me).  Once the solaris10
brand is integrated, I would hope that we would focus our
limited resources on the one brand we do ship across all
architectures and I would anticipate that the sn1 brand will be
of limited usefulness (since its main reason for existence is
to test brandz on sparc).  If we do anything else with sn1
after this brand integrates is outside the scope of this project
and not something we've even discussed (other than my commitment
to fix the sn1 brand per Ed's code review comments).  Of course,
its up to future brand projects to evaluate what makes the most
sense for their project and I can't commit those hypothetical
projects to anything.


zones-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to