On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 06:09:38PM +, Peter Tribble wrote:
> I've been following this discussion, and it seems to me that one problem
> we have is that the current communities are focussed around subject
> areas,
> and we don't differentiate by audience. So how do we address the needs
> of
> d
On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 23:01, Dan Price wrote:
>
> Thumbs down to the currently proposed community. Sorry guys :(
I've been following this discussion, and it seems to me that one problem
we have is that the current communities are focussed around subject
areas,
and we don't differentiate by audie
Rainer Orth wrote:
Eric Lowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
What about file systems? Why have ZFS and UFS communities (and possibly
NFS in the future) instead of one file system community with three file
system projects under it?
Speaking of which, it occured to me recently, when I posted a que
Spencer Shepler writes:
> > http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=6717&tstart=0
>
> Just FYI, the response is forthcoming; the person that was
> drafting something has been a little swamped.
Great, thanks. Anyway, I hope someone finds the suggested reorganization
useful none
On Fri, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Eric Lowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > What about file systems? Why have ZFS and UFS communities (and possibly
> > NFS in the future) instead of one file system community with three file
> > system projects under it?
>
> Speaking of which, it occured to me rece
Eric Lowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What about file systems? Why have ZFS and UFS communities (and possibly
> NFS in the future) instead of one file system community with three file
> system projects under it?
Speaking of which, it occured to me recently, when I posted a question
about the
Eric Lowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Continuing down that path without providing a more general technical forum
> means that if I want to keep up on the state of the art of the system
> internals, I have to drown in non-technical information and discussion.
> Linux, NetBSD, FreeBSD, and others
Eric Lowe writes:
> A really rough strawman might look something like the following community
> structure in place of "core OS":
>
>kernel
>user commands
>libraries
>
> but that's not perfect either.
No, it's not.
I suppose the problem is that we've really got overlapping sets here
Jim,
Operating System is the entire WOS, from kernel through desktop and servers,
all the consolidations, so presumably you're thinking of the subset of ON
that's not networking. Maybe "Core OS" or something?
Even at that, I think it's really quite vague and likely implicitly
refers to inter
On Thu 03/16/06 at 17:13 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Things were setup that way before projects existed and everything had to be
> >a community. The "Nevada" community (which is misnamed to begin with),
> >should
> >become a ONNV project of an ON community which could also host your
> >inte
Alan Coopersmith writes:
> > There is already a separate community for networking, so if we go that
> > route I think this community should just be for the OS part.
>
> Then you'ld have to define "OS." The official definition of the Solaris
> Operating System is the entire WOS, from kernel th
. Bug 6370879 was filed on this, but hasn't
been implemented yet.
-Michelle
>X-Original-To: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
>Delivered-To: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
>Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 17:13:55 -0600
>From: Eric Lowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [o
Then you'ld have to define "OS." The official definition of the
Solaris Operating System is the entire WOS, from kernel through desktop
and servers,
all the consolidations, so presumably you're thinking of the subset of ON
that's not networking. Maybe "Core OS" or something?
Yes, core OS -
Eric Lowe wrote:
So let me propose:
- Rename and refactor the 'onnv' community into 'os-net' or some
such. Remove its logical binding to the nevada release train.
There is already a separate community for networking, so if we go that
route I think this community should jus
So let me propose:
- Rename and refactor the 'onnv' community into 'os-net' or some
such. Remove its logical binding to the nevada release train.
There is already a separate community for networking, so if we go that
route I think this community should just be for the OS par
Things were setup that way before projects existed and everything had to be
a community. The "Nevada" community (which is misnamed to begin with),
should
become a ONNV project of an ON community which could also host your
internals
information.
... and proposed discussion list(s).
Agreed,
On Thu 16 Mar 2006 at 02:19PM, Stephen Hahn wrote:
> * Nils Nieuwejaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-03-16 12:37]:
> > On Thu 03/16/06 at 11:30 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > 2. What is the relationship between this community and the existing ON
> > > (Nevada) community? Why is that alias
Nils Nieuwejaar wrote:
2. What is the relationship between this community and the existing ON
(Nevada) community? Why is that alias, or a second alias (or
project) not appropriate for hosting this content? (Why not
[EMAIL PROTECTED])
The Nevada community seems to be shooting
* Stephen Hahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-03-16 14:19]:
> My concern here was more connected with the fact that these
> "grandfathered" aliases exist and overlap (to whatever degree). I
> think I would like to hear about how to eventually close some of the
> program-wide aliases, as consoli
* Nils Nieuwejaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-03-16 12:37]:
> On Thu 03/16/06 at 11:30 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > 2. What is the relationship between this community and the existing ON
> > (Nevada) community? Why is that alias, or a second alias (or
> > project) not appropriate
On Thu 03/16/06 at 11:30 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I believe this proposal needs to provide further contrasts against
> existing communities and projects to make aspects more clear.
> (As a nit, the bare word "solaris" is not an appropriate part for a
> community name. I'm also not
I believe this proposal needs to provide further contrasts against
existing communities and projects to make aspects more clear.
opensolaris-discuss is too broad an audience for internals discussions.
opensolaris-code I thought was meant to cover code topics and questions,
but has been ove
* Nils Nieuwejaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-03-16 10:49]:
> We would like to propose a solaris-internals community. The initial
> leaders would be Jonathan Chew, Eric Lowe, Eric Saxe, and me. We hope to
> expand this list quickly, with engineers from inside of Sun and from the
> community.
>
> T
On Thu 03/16/06 at 11:12 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Nils Nieuwejaar wrote:
> >The solaris-internals community would host one or more discussion groups.
> >Initially there would just be a single group: solaris-internals. If the
> >traffic warranted, we could create more specific discussions wit
Nils Nieuwejaar wrote:
The solaris-internals community would host one or more discussion groups.
Initially there would just be a single group: solaris-internals. If the
traffic warranted, we could create more specific discussions within the
group. Some possible child discussions might be solari
We would like to propose a solaris-internals community. The initial
leaders would be Jonathan Chew, Eric Lowe, Eric Saxe, and me. We hope to
expand this list quickly, with engineers from inside of Sun and from the
community.
There are quite a few communities dedicated to specific parts of Solari
26 matches
Mail list logo
