From andrum06 at googlemail.com Mon Nov 2 04:52:08 2009 From: andrum06 at googlemail.com (andrew) Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 04:52:08 PST Subject: [arc-discuss] Updates to "ONNV Flag Days, Heads Ups, and Project Integration History" Message-ID: <504179589.101257166365093.JavaMail.Twebapp@sf-app2> There have not been any updates to the above pages since the move to XWiki. Is this because there have not been any updates or has it stopped being updated? If so, is it intended that the updates continue? Thanks Andrew. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org From andrum06 at googlemail.com Mon Nov 2 04:53:27 2009 From: andrum06 at googlemail.com (andrew) Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 04:53:27 PST Subject: [arc-discuss] Updates to "ONNV Flag Days, Heads Ups, and Project Integration History" In-Reply-To: <504179589.101257166365093.JavaMail.Twebapp@sf-app2> Message-ID: <176524674.111257166437256.JavaMail.Twebapp@sf-app2> > There have not been any updates to the above pages > since the move to XWiki. Is this because there have > not been any updates or has it stopped being updated? > If so, is it intended that the updates continue? > > Thanks > > Andrew. I didn't word that particularly well. ;-) What I'm actually looking for is whether or not ther eis a problem with the page that is preventing updates, and if these pages will continue to be updated in the future. Thanks Andrew. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org From Sebastien.Roy at Sun.COM Mon Nov 2 06:17:13 2009 From: Sebastien.Roy at Sun.COM (Sebastien Roy) Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:17:13 -0500 Subject: [arc-discuss] Updates to "ONNV Flag Days, Heads Ups, and Project Integration History" In-Reply-To: <504179589.101257166365093.JavaMail.Twebapp@sf-app2> References: <504179589.101257166365093.JavaMail.Twebapp@sf-app2> Message-ID: <1257171433.8195.81.camel@seb> On Mon, 2009-11-02 at 04:52 -0800, andrew wrote: > There have not been any updates to the above pages since the move to XWiki. > Is this because there have not been any updates or has it stopped being > updated? If so, is it intended that the updates continue? The ON community manages pages related to ON consolidation integrations, and their discussion list is on-discuss at opensolaris.org. arc-discuss at opensolaris.org is a discussion list for the ARC community which deals with architectural reviews. -Seb P.S.: FWIW, I know that the xwiki transition has broken the automated scripts that the ON gatekeepers use to keep their pages up to date. I don't know when they'll be fixed, but I'm sure you'll get more details from the ON community. From cyril.plisko at mountall.com Thu Nov 5 11:22:55 2009 From: cyril.plisko at mountall.com (Cyril Plisko) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 21:22:55 +0200 Subject: [arc-discuss] EOF of stp4020 [PSARC/2009/580 FastTrack timeout 10/31/2009] In-Reply-To: <4AF31AEB.90705@sun.com> References: <200910250326.n9P3QOtB001346@sac.sfbay.sun.com> <4AE72CD3.9080207@sun.com> <4AE732D6.6020703@workingcode.com> <4AE73709.1030605@sun.com> <4AE740AA.1010704@workingcode.com> <4AE742D1.5090104@sun.com> <4AE7477E.7020609@workingcode.com> <4AE74B71.8050009@sun.com> <4AF31AEB.90705@sun.com> Message-ID: [Removing PSARC-ext, and adding arc-discuss since it does seem to be related to the case anymore] On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 8:35 PM, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > I'm not going to disagree with your sentiments... but to date there are many > situations where Sun's business interests trump those of the community. ?As > long as the ON consolidation is staffed entirely by folks who owe allegiance > to Sun (or its successors), then it will be hard to effect any change that > allows the community to integrate "community sustained" sources. Why ? What is the reason for that ? BTW, what is the exact definition of "ON consolidation staff" ? I do not seem to be able to find this on h.o.o > > At the end of the day, its not clear to me that this is really that great of > a problem. ?Its perfectly reasonable to create other consolidation with > non-Sun sources (or with sources that Sun doesn't approve of) that live side > by side with ON. There is no intrinsic need that legacy hardware support > stuff has to be in ON. On the one hand I pretty much agree with you, heck, I very much agree with you. On the other hand the idea that OpenSolaris ON consolidation is driven entirely by Sun business needs just doesn't feel correct. -- Regards, Cyril From Garrett.Damore at Sun.COM Thu Nov 5 11:59:34 2009 From: Garrett.Damore at Sun.COM (Garrett D'Amore) Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:59:34 -0800 Subject: [arc-discuss] EOF of stp4020 [PSARC/2009/580 FastTrack timeout 10/31/2009] In-Reply-To: References: <200910250326.n9P3QOtB001346@sac.sfbay.sun.com> <4AE72CD3.9080207@sun.com> <4AE732D6.6020703@workingcode.com> <4AE73709.1030605@sun.com> <4AE740AA.1010704@workingcode.com> <4AE742D1.5090104@sun.com> <4AE7477E.7020609@workingcode.com> <4AE74B71.8050009@sun.com> <4AF31AEB.90705@sun.com> Message-ID: <4AF32EA6.80102@sun.com> Cyril Plisko wrote: > [Removing PSARC-ext, and adding arc-discuss since it does seem to be > related to the case anymore] > > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 8:35 PM, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > >> I'm not going to disagree with your sentiments... but to date there are many >> situations where Sun's business interests trump those of the community. As >> long as the ON consolidation is staffed entirely by folks who owe allegiance >> to Sun (or its successors), then it will be hard to effect any change that >> allows the community to integrate "community sustained" sources. >> > > Why ? What is the reason for that ? BTW, what is the exact definition > of "ON consolidation staff" ? > I do not seem to be able to find this on h.o.o > The CRT advocates, ON C-Team, etc. The ON consolidation is really an SMI entity. Other people contribute to it, but there are parts beyond. The fact that there is a closed-source component to ON further underscores this fact. > >> At the end of the day, its not clear to me that this is really that great of >> a problem. Its perfectly reasonable to create other consolidation with >> non-Sun sources (or with sources that Sun doesn't approve of) that live side >> by side with ON. There is no intrinsic need that legacy hardware support >> stuff has to be in ON. >> > > On the one hand I pretty much agree with you, heck, I very much agree with you. > On the other hand the idea that OpenSolaris ON consolidation is driven > entirely by Sun business needs just doesn't feel correct. > > Sun business needs trump this consolidation. So far those business needs *mostly* align with the desires of the community. At the end of the day, if the community wants to fork the open portions of the ON consolidation, they are free to do so. (This has actually already been done.) -- Garrett