2008/344 [ksh93 Integration Update 1 Amendments 1]

[Joseph Kowalski]

Roland Mainz wrote:
> Joseph Kowalski wrote:
>   
>> Glenn Skinner wrote:
>>     
> [snip]
>   
>>>     ## Part 1.1: Update of ksh93
>>>     The 1.1 portion of this project is the update of ksh93 from
>>>     ast-ksh.2007-12-15 to ast-ksh-2008-05-22 which marks the update
>>>     from ksh93 version 's+' to version 't-' (AST/ksh93 uses the
>>>     (latin) alphabet for its version number, e.g.  version 'a',
>>>     version 'b' etc.  ; the '+'/'-' means the stabilty status, e.g.
>>>     '-' means its "alpha", no suffix means its "stable" (e.g.  ready
>>>     for production usage) and '+' means its a bugfixed stable version
>>>     etc.).
>>>
>>> Are we to infer from this nomenclature description that ksh's
>>> stability level is decreasing as part of this case?
>>>       
>> I read it as "we don't integrate '-' versions into Solaris".  Did I
>> guess right?
>>     
>
> Grumpf... IMO it depends what the '-' means - see
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ksh93-integration-discuss/2008-May/006127.html
> for the testing we do right now for ksh93...
>   


Testing isn't the issue.

By assigning the '-' suffix the community is asserting "not ready for 
prime time".  We should believe them and not consider integration into 
the OpenSolaris trunk.  This seems very obvious to me.  I would guess 
that the community wouldn't flinch about changing an interface which 
first appeared in a '-' release.  Seems the reason for having such releases.

Perhaps this is a C-team issue, more than an ARC issue, but regardless, 
such integrations should not occur.

- jek3