From Mon Jul 28 11:18:48 2008 Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:18:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Postmaster Subject: Message from mail server Content-Length: 94 Mime-Version: 1.0 Status: RO X-IMAP: 1217269128 18 Delete. This is a system message. --END+PSEUDO-- From sh162551@sac.sfbay.sun.com Mon Jul 21 02:22:04 2008 Received: from sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com (sunmail2sca.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.234]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6L9M4rq008766 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 02:22:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM (nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.74]) by sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m6L9M3lY002756; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 02:22:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K4C00M07NCOMC00@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM>; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 02:22:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dm-sfbay-02.sfbay.sun.com ([129.146.11.31]) by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K4C00MPGNCO7800@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM>; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 02:22:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sac.sfbay.sun.com (new-sac.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.175.65]) by dm-sfbay-02.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m6L9Lxr3037146; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 02:21:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sac.sfbay.sun.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6L9LvLs008743; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 02:21:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from sh162551@localhost) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/Submit) id m6L9LvXN008739; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 02:21:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 02:21:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Shi-Ying Irene Huang Subject: Openproj for OpenSolaris [LSARC/2008/464 FastTrack timeout 07/29/2008] To: lsarc-ext@sun.com Cc: jim.li@sun.com Message-id: <200807210921.m6L9LvXN008739@sac.sfbay.sun.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 Content-Length: 3910 Status: RO X-Status: $$$$ X-UID: 0000000001 Template Version: @(#)sac_nextcase 1.66 04/17/08 SMI This information is Copyright 2008 Sun Microsystems 1. Introduction 1.1. Project/Component Working Name: Openproj for OpenSolaris 1.2. Name of Document Author/Supplier: Author: Jim Li 1.3 Date of This Document: 21 July, 2008 4. Technical Description 1. Introduction 1.1. Project/Component Working Name: Openproj 1.2. Name of Document Author/Supplier: Jim Li 1.3. Date of This Document: 07/14/08 1.3.1. Date this project was conceived: N/A 1.4. Name of Major Document Customer(s)/Consumer(s): 1.4.1. The PAC or CPT you expect to review your project: Solaris PAC 1.4.2. The ARC(s) you expect to review your project: LSARC 1.4.3. The Director/VP who is "Sponsoring" this project: rebert.odea@Sun.Com 1.4.4. The name of your business unit: OPG / OpenSource 1.5. Email Aliases: 1.5.1. Responsible Manager: leo.binchy@sun.com 1.5.2. Responsible Engineer: jim.li@sun.com 1.5.3. Marketing Manager: dan.robert@sun.com 1.5.4. Interest List: desktop-discuss@opensolaris.org 4. Technical Description: 4.1. Details: Openproj is a open source project management tool. It is capable of sharing files with Microsoft Project and has very similar func- tion (Gannt, PERT diagram, histogram, charts, reports, detailed usage), as well as tree views which aren't in MS Project. 4.2. Bug/RFE Number(s): None. 4.3. In Scope: None. 4.4. Out of Scope: None. 4.5. Interfaces: ------------------------------------------------------------------ Exported Stability Comments ------------------------------------------------------------------ SUNWopenproj Uncommitted package name /usr/bin/openproj Volatile script CLI /usr/share/applications/openproj.desktop Volatile .desktop file /usr/share/icons/openproj.png Volatile icon file /usr/share/man/man1/openproj.1 Volatile man page /usr/share/mime/packages/openproj.xml Volatile mime file /usr/share/openproj/openproj.jar Project private main jar file /usr/share/openproj/lib/*.jar Project private jar file $HOME/.openproj Volatile per user configuration fileq ------------------------------------------------------------------ Imported Stability ARC case Comments ------------------------------------------------------------------ Java Runtime Committed 2003/269 >= 1.5.0 4.6. Doc Impact: Man page will be installed. 4.7. Admin/Config Impact: None. 4.8. HA Impact: None. 4.9. I18N/L10N Impact: The JDS team and G11N are working together to evaluate and provide L18N/L10N support. 4.10. Packaging & Delivery: Add new packages, SUNWopenproj, approximately 6.9M 4.11. Security Impact: None. 4.12. Dependencies: None. 5. Reference Documents: Openproj community http://www.openproj.org/ 6. Resources and Schedule 6.4. Steering Committee requested information 6.4.1. Consolidation C-team Name: Desktop 6.5. ARC review type: FastTrack 6.6. ARC Exposure: open From Irene.Huang@sun.com Mon Jul 21 02:27:42 2008 Received: from sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (sunmail4.Singapore.Sun.COM [129.158.71.19]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6L9Rf05008939 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 02:27:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM (nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.74]) by sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (8.13.4+Sun/8.13.3/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m6L9RY1t012607 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc-ext@sun.com>; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:27:40 +0800 (SGT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K4C00005NM33000@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@sun.com); Mon, 21 Jul 2008 02:27:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sineb-mail-1.sun.com ([192.18.19.6]) by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K4C00MWNNM27A10@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@sun.com); Mon, 21 Jul 2008 02:27:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-apac-06.sun.com (fe-apac-06.sun.com [192.18.19.177] (may be forged)) by sineb-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m6L9S6XW014485 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 09:28:07 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-apac.sun.com by mail-apac.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) id <0K4C00201NE41300@mail-apac.sun.com> (original mail from Irene.Huang@Sun.COM) for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@sun.com); Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:25:14 +0800 (SGT) Received: from [129.158.217.138] by mail-apac.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) with ESMTPSA id <0K4C00BXSNHZRE43@mail-apac.sun.com>; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:25:12 +0800 (SGT) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:28:21 +0800 From: Irene Huang Subject: Re: Openproj for OpenSolaris [LSARC/2008/464 FastTrack timeout 07/29/2008] In-reply-to: <200807210921.m6L9LvXN008739@sac.sfbay.sun.com> Sender: Irene.Huang@sun.com To: Shi-Ying Irene Huang Cc: lsarc-ext@sun.com, Jim.Li@sun.com Message-id: <1216632501.1523.11.camel@goalie> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.2 Content-type: text/plain Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200807210921.m6L9LvXN008739@sac.sfbay.sun.com> Content-Length: 4512 Status: RO X-Status: $$$$ X-UID: 0000000002 Hi, all I am sponsoring this project, additional materials are available at Internally http://sac.eng/Archives/CaseLog/arc/LSARC/2008/464/materials Externally http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/arc/caselog/2008/464 Thanks --Irene On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 02:21 -0700, Shi-Ying Irene Huang wrote: > Template Version: @(#)sac_nextcase 1.66 04/17/08 SMI > This information is Copyright 2008 Sun Microsystems > 1. Introduction > 1.1. Project/Component Working Name: > Openproj for OpenSolaris > 1.2. Name of Document Author/Supplier: > Author: Jim Li > 1.3 Date of This Document: > 21 July, 2008 > 4. Technical Description > 1. Introduction > 1.1. Project/Component Working Name: > > Openproj > > 1.2. Name of Document Author/Supplier: > > Jim Li > > 1.3. Date of This Document: > > 07/14/08 > > 1.3.1. Date this project was conceived: > > N/A > > 1.4. Name of Major Document Customer(s)/Consumer(s): > 1.4.1. The PAC or CPT you expect to review your project: > > Solaris PAC > > 1.4.2. The ARC(s) you expect to review your project: > > LSARC > > 1.4.3. The Director/VP who is "Sponsoring" this project: > > rebert.odea@Sun.Com > > 1.4.4. The name of your business unit: > > OPG / OpenSource > > 1.5. Email Aliases: > 1.5.1. Responsible Manager: > > leo.binchy@sun.com > > 1.5.2. Responsible Engineer: > > jim.li@sun.com > > 1.5.3. Marketing Manager: > > dan.robert@sun.com > > 1.5.4. Interest List: > > desktop-discuss@opensolaris.org > > > 4. Technical Description: > 4.1. Details: > > Openproj is a open source project management tool. It is capable > of sharing files with Microsoft Project and has very similar func- > tion (Gannt, PERT diagram, histogram, charts, reports, detailed > usage), as well as tree views which aren't in MS Project. > > 4.2. Bug/RFE Number(s): > > None. > > 4.3. In Scope: > > None. > > 4.4. Out of Scope: > > None. > > 4.5. Interfaces: > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Exported Stability Comments > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > SUNWopenproj Uncommitted package name > /usr/bin/openproj Volatile script CLI > /usr/share/applications/openproj.desktop > Volatile .desktop file > /usr/share/icons/openproj.png Volatile icon file > /usr/share/man/man1/openproj.1 > Volatile man page > /usr/share/mime/packages/openproj.xml > Volatile mime file > /usr/share/openproj/openproj.jar > Project private main jar file > /usr/share/openproj/lib/*.jar Project private jar file > $HOME/.openproj Volatile per user > configuration fileq > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Imported Stability ARC case Comments > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Java Runtime Committed 2003/269 >= 1.5.0 > > 4.6. Doc Impact: > > Man page will be installed. > > 4.7. Admin/Config Impact: > > None. > > 4.8. HA Impact: > > None. > > 4.9. I18N/L10N Impact: > > The JDS team and G11N are working together to evaluate and > provide L18N/L10N support. > > 4.10. Packaging & Delivery: > > Add new packages, SUNWopenproj, approximately 6.9M > > 4.11. Security Impact: > > None. > > 4.12. Dependencies: > > None. > > 5. Reference Documents: > > Openproj community > http://www.openproj.org/ > > > 6. Resources and Schedule > 6.4. Steering Committee requested information > 6.4.1. Consolidation C-team Name: > Desktop > 6.5. ARC review type: FastTrack > 6.6. ARC Exposure: open > From Brian.Cameron@sun.com Thu Jul 24 06:11:42 2008 Received: from sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com (sunmail2sca.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.234]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6ODBfwj005039 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 06:11:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (brm-avmta-1.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.4.11]) by sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m6ODBZ5L024691 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc-ext@sun.com>; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 06:11:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K4I00405HZHC600@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@sun.com); Thu, 24 Jul 2008 07:11:41 -0600 (MDT) Received: from brmea-mail-1.sun.com ([192.18.98.31]) by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K4I00342HZGYM20@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@sun.com); Thu, 24 Jul 2008 07:11:40 -0600 (MDT) Received: from fe-amer-10.sun.com ([192.18.109.80]) by brmea-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m6ODBeQx011765 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:11:40 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0K4I00H01HYRSL00@mail-amer.sun.com> (original mail from Brian.Cameron@Sun.COM) for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@sun.com); Thu, 24 Jul 2008 07:11:40 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [129.156.226.192] by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0K4I00H6QHZEJO00@mail-amer.sun.com>; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 07:11:40 -0600 (MDT) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 08:11:46 -0500 From: Brian Cameron Subject: Re: Openproj for OpenSolaris [LSARC/2008/464 FastTrack timeout 07/29/2008] In-reply-to: <200807210921.m6L9LvXN008739@sac.sfbay.sun.com> Sender: Brian.Cameron@sun.com To: Shi-Ying Irene Huang Cc: lsarc-ext@sun.com, Jim.Li@sun.com Message-id: <48887F92.60002@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200807210921.m6L9LvXN008739@sac.sfbay.sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080701) Content-Length: 4522 Status: RO X-Status: $$$$ X-UID: 0000000003 Irene: LSARC 208/454 Planner: project management tool for the Gnome desktop is also integrating another Project planning tool called Planner. Perhaps we should decide which tool would make the most sense to integrate, or do we need both? This case doesn't talk about how it relates to Planner at all. Brian > Template Version: @(#)sac_nextcase 1.66 04/17/08 SMI > This information is Copyright 2008 Sun Microsystems > 1. Introduction > 1.1. Project/Component Working Name: > Openproj for OpenSolaris > 1.2. Name of Document Author/Supplier: > Author: Jim Li > 1.3 Date of This Document: > 21 July, 2008 > 4. Technical Description > 1. Introduction > 1.1. Project/Component Working Name: > > Openproj > > 1.2. Name of Document Author/Supplier: > > Jim Li > > 1.3. Date of This Document: > > 07/14/08 > > 1.3.1. Date this project was conceived: > > N/A > > 1.4. Name of Major Document Customer(s)/Consumer(s): > 1.4.1. The PAC or CPT you expect to review your project: > > Solaris PAC > > 1.4.2. The ARC(s) you expect to review your project: > > LSARC > > 1.4.3. The Director/VP who is "Sponsoring" this project: > > rebert.odea@Sun.Com > > 1.4.4. The name of your business unit: > > OPG / OpenSource > > 1.5. Email Aliases: > 1.5.1. Responsible Manager: > > leo.binchy@sun.com > > 1.5.2. Responsible Engineer: > > jim.li@sun.com > > 1.5.3. Marketing Manager: > > dan.robert@sun.com > > 1.5.4. Interest List: > > desktop-discuss@opensolaris.org > > > 4. Technical Description: > 4.1. Details: > > Openproj is a open source project management tool. It is capable > of sharing files with Microsoft Project and has very similar func- > tion (Gannt, PERT diagram, histogram, charts, reports, detailed > usage), as well as tree views which aren't in MS Project. > > 4.2. Bug/RFE Number(s): > > None. > > 4.3. In Scope: > > None. > > 4.4. Out of Scope: > > None. > > 4.5. Interfaces: > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Exported Stability Comments > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > SUNWopenproj Uncommitted package name > /usr/bin/openproj Volatile script CLI > /usr/share/applications/openproj.desktop > Volatile .desktop file > /usr/share/icons/openproj.png Volatile icon file > /usr/share/man/man1/openproj.1 > Volatile man page > /usr/share/mime/packages/openproj.xml > Volatile mime file > /usr/share/openproj/openproj.jar > Project private main jar file > /usr/share/openproj/lib/*.jar Project private jar file > $HOME/.openproj Volatile per user > configuration fileq > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Imported Stability ARC case Comments > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Java Runtime Committed 2003/269 >= 1.5.0 > > 4.6. Doc Impact: > > Man page will be installed. > > 4.7. Admin/Config Impact: > > None. > > 4.8. HA Impact: > > None. > > 4.9. I18N/L10N Impact: > > The JDS team and G11N are working together to evaluate and > provide L18N/L10N support. > > 4.10. Packaging & Delivery: > > Add new packages, SUNWopenproj, approximately 6.9M > > 4.11. Security Impact: > > None. > > 4.12. Dependencies: > > None. > > 5. Reference Documents: > > Openproj community > http://www.openproj.org/ > > > 6. Resources and Schedule > 6.4. Steering Committee requested information > 6.4.1. Consolidation C-team Name: > Desktop > 6.5. ARC review type: FastTrack > 6.6. ARC Exposure: open > From Torrey.McMahon@sun.com Thu Jul 24 08:35:36 2008 Received: from sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (sunmail4.Singapore.Sun.COM [129.158.71.19]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6OFZZIo006999 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 08:35:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (nwk-avmta-2.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.6]) by sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (8.13.4+Sun/8.13.3/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m6OFZ8ct026373 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc-ext@sun.com>; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 23:35:34 +0800 (SGT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K4I00J0FON9RV00@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@sun.com); Thu, 24 Jul 2008 08:35:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brmea-mail-2.sun.com ([192.18.98.43]) by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K4I00JMYOMZDZ10@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@sun.com); Thu, 24 Jul 2008 08:35:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-amer-09.sun.com ([192.18.109.79]) by brmea-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m6OFZNrV009573 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:35:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0K4I00K01LA3SV00@mail-amer.sun.com> (original mail from Torrey.McMahon@Sun.COM) for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@sun.com); Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:35:23 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [192.168.0.199] ([69.143.4.246]) by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0K4I007AEOMPT650@mail-amer.sun.com>; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:35:14 -0600 (MDT) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 11:35:14 -0400 From: Torrey McMahon Subject: Re: Openproj for OpenSolaris [LSARC/2008/464 FastTrack timeout 07/29/2008] In-reply-to: <48887F92.60002@sun.com> Sender: Torrey.McMahon@sun.com To: Brian Cameron Cc: Shi-Ying Irene Huang , lsarc-ext@sun.com, Jim.Li@sun.com Message-id: <4888A132.9010408@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200807210921.m6L9LvXN008739@sac.sfbay.sun.com> <48887F92.60002@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421) Content-Length: 529 Status: RO X-Status: $$$$ X-UID: 0000000004 Not to start a flame-fest here but haven't we seen a lot of other projects come across lately that integrate functionality that matches an other project? Why would this be different? Brian Cameron wrote: > > Irene: > > LSARC 208/454 Planner: project management tool for the Gnome desktop is > also integrating another Project planning tool called Planner. Perhaps > we should decide which tool would make the most sense to integrate, or > do we need both? This case doesn't talk about how it relates to Planner > at all. From John.Fischer@sun.com Thu Jul 24 09:01:33 2008 Received: from sunmail3mpk.sfbay.sun.com (sunmail3mpk.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.52]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6OG1Xd5008004 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:01:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (nwk-avmta-2.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.6]) by sunmail3mpk.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m6OG1TX9017642 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc-ext@sun.com>; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:01:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K4I00K6NPUKSU00@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@sun.com); Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:01:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sca-es-mail-1.sun.com ([192.18.43.132]) by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K4I00J9CPUDE440@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@sun.com); Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:01:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-sfbay-10.sun.com ([192.18.43.129]) by sca-es-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m6OG1Pu4025623 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:01:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-sfbay-10.sun.com by fe-sfbay-10.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0K4I00K01PQW2L00@fe-sfbay-10.sun.com> (original mail from John.Fischer@Sun.COM) for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@sun.com); Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:01:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.10.8] ([76.20.56.47]) by fe-sfbay-10.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0K4I0015YPU40Z70@fe-sfbay-10.sun.com>; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:01:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:00:53 -0700 From: John Fischer Subject: Re: Openproj for OpenSolaris [LSARC/2008/464 FastTrack timeout 07/29/2008] In-reply-to: <4888A132.9010408@sun.com> Sender: John.Fischer@sun.com To: Torrey McMahon Cc: Brian Cameron , Shi-Ying Irene Huang , lsarc-ext@sun.com, Jim.Li@sun.com Reply-to: John.Fischer@sun.com Message-id: <4888A735.5040904@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200807210921.m6L9LvXN008739@sac.sfbay.sun.com> <48887F92.60002@sun.com> <4888A132.9010408@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080616) Content-Length: 691 Status: RO X-Status: $$$$ X-UID: 0000000005 All, I believe that these are all part of the familiarity project. Project team is that not correct? Thanks, John Torrey McMahon wrote: > Not to start a flame-fest here but haven't we seen a lot of other > projects come across lately that integrate functionality that matches an > other project? Why would this be different? > > Brian Cameron wrote: >> >> Irene: >> >> LSARC 208/454 Planner: project management tool for the Gnome desktop is >> also integrating another Project planning tool called Planner. Perhaps >> we should decide which tool would make the most sense to integrate, or >> do we need both? This case doesn't talk about how it relates to Planner >> at all. > > From Brian.Cameron@sun.com Thu Jul 24 09:46:23 2008 Received: from sunmail5.uk.sun.com (sunmail5.UK.Sun.COM [129.156.85.165]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6OGkMXR009815 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:46:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM (nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.74]) by sunmail5.uk.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m6OGk1LD016633 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc-ext@sun.com>; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:46:21 +0100 (BST) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K4I00D0LRX7YW00@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@sun.com); Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:46:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brmea-mail-1.sun.com ([192.18.98.31]) by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K4I0019ERX651B0@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@sun.com); Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:46:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-amer-10.sun.com ([192.18.109.80]) by brmea-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m6OGkIYV014432 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:46:18 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0K4I00C01PK8N500@mail-amer.sun.com> (original mail from Brian.Cameron@Sun.COM) for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@sun.com); Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:46:18 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [129.156.226.192] by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0K4I00CBFRWX4370@mail-amer.sun.com>; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:46:11 -0600 (MDT) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 11:46:18 -0500 From: Brian Cameron Subject: Re: Openproj for OpenSolaris [LSARC/2008/464 FastTrack timeout 07/29/2008] In-reply-to: <4888A132.9010408@sun.com> Sender: Brian.Cameron@sun.com To: Torrey McMahon Cc: Shi-Ying Irene Huang , lsarc-ext@sun.com, Jim.Li@sun.com Message-id: <4888B1DA.5090004@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200807210921.m6L9LvXN008739@sac.sfbay.sun.com> <48887F92.60002@sun.com> <4888A132.9010408@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080701) Content-Length: 521 Status: RO X-Status: $$$$ X-UID: 0000000006 Torrey: > Not to start a flame-fest here but haven't we seen a lot of other > projects come across lately that integrate functionality that matches an > other project? Why would this be different? I don't think it is a problem to have duplicate functionality, personally. I would just like to hear that the project teams delivering related projects are talking together and formulating their plans with each other in mind, cooperating with work on any common dependencies, etc. At least aware of each other. Brian From Nicolas.Williams@sun.com Thu Jul 24 09:51:16 2008 Received: from sunmail5.uk.sun.com (sunmail5.UK.Sun.COM [129.156.85.165]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6OGpFsq009895 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:51:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (nwk-avmta-2.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.6]) by sunmail5.uk.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m6OGp71K019120; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:51:11 +0100 (BST) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K4I00M1BS59LQ00@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com>; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:51:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from binky.Central.Sun.COM ([129.153.128.104]) by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K4I00JB6S56E670@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com>; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:51:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from binky.Central.Sun.COM (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by binky.Central.Sun.COM (8.14.1+Sun/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m6OGp6wj029469; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 11:51:06 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from nw141292@localhost) by binky.Central.Sun.COM (8.14.1+Sun/8.14.1/Submit) id m6OGp50Y029468; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 11:51:05 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 11:51:05 -0500 From: Nicolas Williams Subject: Re: Openproj for OpenSolaris [LSARC/2008/464 FastTrack timeout 07/29/2008] In-reply-to: <4888B1DA.5090004@sun.com> To: Brian Cameron Cc: Torrey McMahon , Jim.Li@sun.com, lsarc-ext@sun.com, Shi-Ying Irene Huang Message-id: <20080724165105.GZ25547@Sun.COM> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200807210921.m6L9LvXN008739@sac.sfbay.sun.com> <48887F92.60002@sun.com> <4888A132.9010408@sun.com> <4888B1DA.5090004@sun.com> X-Authentication-warning: binky.Central.Sun.COM: nw141292 set sender to Nicolas.Williams@sun.com using -f User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.7i Content-Length: 688 Status: RO X-Status: $$$$ X-UID: 0000000007 On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 11:46:18AM -0500, Brian Cameron wrote: > Torrey: > > > Not to start a flame-fest here but haven't we seen a lot of other > > projects come across lately that integrate functionality that matches an > > other project? Why would this be different? > > I don't think it is a problem to have duplicate functionality, > personally. I would just like to hear that the project teams delivering > related projects are talking together and formulating their plans with > each other in mind, cooperating with work on any common dependencies, > etc. At least aware of each other. We should deliver both. And we should do that wherever there's dups in the FOSS world. From Torrey.McMahon@sun.com Thu Jul 24 09:52:59 2008 Received: from newsunmail1brm.central.sun.com (newsunmail1brm.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.62.245]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6OGqxAG009929 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:52:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM (nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.74]) by newsunmail1brm.central.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m6OGqjIV030820 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc-ext@sun.com>; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:52:59 -0600 (MDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K4I00E09S8AKL00@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@sun.com); Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:52:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brmea-mail-3.sun.com ([192.18.98.34]) by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K4I001U4S8451B0@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@sun.com); Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:52:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-amer-10.sun.com ([192.18.109.80]) by brmea-mail-3.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m6OGqqt3019013 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:52:52 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0K4I00A01RO93T00@mail-amer.sun.com> (original mail from Torrey.McMahon@Sun.COM) for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@sun.com); Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:52:52 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [192.168.0.199] ([69.143.4.246]) by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0K4I00CTFS7R9S60@mail-amer.sun.com>; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:52:40 -0600 (MDT) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:52:40 -0400 From: Torrey McMahon Subject: Re: Openproj for OpenSolaris [LSARC/2008/464 FastTrack timeout 07/29/2008] In-reply-to: <4888B1DA.5090004@sun.com> Sender: Torrey.McMahon@sun.com To: Brian Cameron Cc: Shi-Ying Irene Huang , lsarc-ext@sun.com, Jim.Li@sun.com Message-id: <4888B358.1090400@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200807210921.m6L9LvXN008739@sac.sfbay.sun.com> <48887F92.60002@sun.com> <4888A132.9010408@sun.com> <4888B1DA.5090004@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421) Content-Length: 740 Status: RO X-Status: $$$$ X-UID: 0000000008 Brian Cameron wrote: > Torrey: > >> Not to start a flame-fest here but haven't we seen a lot of other >> projects come across lately that integrate functionality that matches >> an other project? Why would this be different? > > I don't think it is a problem to have duplicate functionality, > personally. I would just like to hear that the project teams delivering > related projects are talking together and formulating their plans with > each other in mind, cooperating with work on any common dependencies, > etc. At least aware of each other. All of engineering gets the ARC case submittal forms, right? ;) Seriously - I agree with you. One thing I'm sure we'll see is fighting mime types of file extensions in a lot of cases. From Jim.Li@sun.com Fri Jul 25 00:23:27 2008 Received: from sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (sunmail4.Singapore.Sun.COM [129.158.71.19]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6P7NQM5011203 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:23:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (brm-avmta-1.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.4.11]) by sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (8.13.4+Sun/8.13.3/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m6P7NF1w016245 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc-ext@sun.com>; Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:23:25 +0800 (SGT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K4J00G01WIYZT00@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@sun.com); Fri, 25 Jul 2008 01:23:22 -0600 (MDT) Received: from sineb-mail-1.sun.com ([192.18.19.6]) by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K4J00K4EWIXEBD0@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@sun.com); Fri, 25 Jul 2008 01:23:22 -0600 (MDT) Received: from fe-apac-06.sun.com (fe-apac-06.sun.com [192.18.19.177] (may be forged)) by sineb-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m6P7NpbA003352 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2008 07:23:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-apac.sun.com by mail-apac.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) id <0K4J00001WAKKC00@mail-apac.sun.com> (original mail from Jim.Li@Sun.COM) for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@sun.com); Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:20:51 +0800 (SGT) Received: from [129.158.217.251] by mail-apac.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) with ESMTPSA id <0K4J009VIWEL8AVE@mail-apac.sun.com>; Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:20:46 +0800 (SGT) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:38:56 +0800 From: Jim Li Subject: Re: Openproj for OpenSolaris [LSARC/2008/464 FastTrack timeout 07/29/2008] In-reply-to: <20080724165105.GZ25547@Sun.COM> Sender: Jim.Li@sun.com To: Nicolas Williams Cc: Brian Cameron , Torrey McMahon , lsarc-ext@sun.com, Shi-Ying Irene Huang Message-id: <48898310.70300@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en, zh, de X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200807210921.m6L9LvXN008739@sac.sfbay.sun.com> <48887F92.60002@sun.com> <4888A132.9010408@sun.com> <4888B1DA.5090004@sun.com> <20080724165105.GZ25547@Sun.COM> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; zh-CN; rv:1.7) Gecko/20041102 Content-Length: 893 Status: RO X-Status: $$$$ X-UID: 0000000009 Nicolas Williams wrote: >On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 11:46:18AM -0500, Brian Cameron wrote: > > >>Torrey: >> >> >> >>>Not to start a flame-fest here but haven't we seen a lot of other >>>projects come across lately that integrate functionality that matches an >>>other project? Why would this be different? >>> >>> >>I don't think it is a problem to have duplicate functionality, >>personally. I would just like to hear that the project teams delivering >>related projects are talking together and formulating their plans with >>each other in mind, cooperating with work on any common dependencies, >>etc. At least aware of each other. >> >> > >We should deliver both. And we should do that wherever there's dups in >the FOSS world. > > I totally agree personaly. We should give users more opportunities to choice what they want, that's what the real open source are for. From Jim.Li@sun.com Mon Jul 28 00:50:56 2008 Received: from sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (sunmail4.Singapore.Sun.COM [129.158.71.19]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6S7otkp008002 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 00:50:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (nwk-avmta-2.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.6]) by sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (8.13.4+Sun/8.13.3/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m6S7oYQL008929 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc-ext@sun.com>; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:50:54 +0800 (SGT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K4P00G03HSRIS00@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@Sun.COM); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 00:50:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sineb-mail-2.sun.com ([192.18.19.7]) by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K4P00GFFHSP6Q00@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@Sun.COM); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 00:50:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-apac-06.sun.com (fe-apac-06.sun.com [192.18.19.177] (may be forged)) by sineb-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m6S7q1fA010510 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 07:52:01 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-apac.sun.com by mail-apac.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) id <0K4P00501HMGJO00@mail-apac.sun.com> (original mail from Jim.Li@Sun.COM) for lsarc-ext@Sun.COM (ORCPT lsarc-ext@Sun.COM); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:48:17 +0800 (SGT) Received: from [129.158.217.192] by mail-apac.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) with ESMTPSA id <0K4P00BP8HOGREK6@mail-apac.sun.com>; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:48:17 +0800 (SGT) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:50:11 +0800 From: Jim Li Subject: Re: Openproj for OpenSolaris [LSARC/2008/464 FastTrack timeout 07/29/2008] In-reply-to: <4888B358.1090400@sun.com> Sender: Jim.Li@sun.com To: Torrey McMahon Cc: Brian Cameron , Shi-Ying Irene Huang , lsarc-ext@sun.com Message-id: <488D7A33.6030202@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200807210921.m6L9LvXN008739@sac.sfbay.sun.com> <48887F92.60002@sun.com> <4888A132.9010408@sun.com> <4888B1DA.5090004@sun.com> <4888B358.1090400@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20080225) Content-Length: 845 Status: RO X-Status: $$$$ X-UID: 0000000010 Torrey: >>> Not to start a flame-fest here but haven't we seen a lot of other >>> projects come across lately that integrate functionality that >>> matches an other project? Why would this be different? >> >> I don't think it is a problem to have duplicate functionality, >> personally. I would just like to hear that the project teams delivering >> related projects are talking together and formulating their plans with >> each other in mind, cooperating with work on any common dependencies, >> etc. At least aware of each other. > > All of engineering gets the ARC case submittal forms, right? ;) > > Seriously - I agree with you. One thing I'm sure we'll see is fighting > mime types of file extensions in a lot of cases. Mime types of file extensions issue exists in all kind of systems, so IMHO this is not a ARC issue. Thanks Jim From Jim.Li@Sun.COM Mon Jul 28 00:54:38 2008 Received: from sunmail3mpk.sfbay.sun.com (sunmail3mpk.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.52]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6S7scST008364 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 00:54:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (brm-avmta-1.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.4.11]) by sunmail3mpk.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m6S7sbF4005271 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc-ext@sun.com>; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 00:54:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K4P00601HZ1P600@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@sun.com); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 01:54:37 -0600 (MDT) Received: from sineb-mail-2.sun.com ([192.18.19.7]) by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K4P006M1HYZJVC0@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@sun.com); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 01:54:36 -0600 (MDT) Received: from fe-apac-06.sun.com (fe-apac-06.sun.com [192.18.19.177] (may be forged)) by sineb-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m6S7tlDF010791 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 07:55:47 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-apac.sun.com by mail-apac.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) id <0K4P00801HT64700@mail-apac.sun.com> (original mail from Jim.Li@Sun.COM) for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@sun.com); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:52:04 +0800 (SGT) Received: from [129.158.217.192] by mail-apac.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) with ESMTPSA id <0K4P00938HUR8A8H@mail-apac.sun.com>; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:52:03 +0800 (SGT) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:53:57 +0800 From: Jim Li Subject: Re: Openproj for OpenSolaris [LSARC/2008/464 FastTrack timeout 07/29/2008] In-reply-to: <4888B1DA.5090004@sun.com> Sender: Jim.Li@Sun.COM To: Brian Cameron Cc: Torrey McMahon , Shi-Ying Irene Huang , lsarc-ext@Sun.COM Message-id: <488D7B15.6040507@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200807210921.m6L9LvXN008739@sac.sfbay.sun.com> <48887F92.60002@sun.com> <4888A132.9010408@sun.com> <4888B1DA.5090004@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20080225) Content-Length: 679 Status: RO X-Status: $$$$ X-UID: 0000000011 Brian: >> Not to start a flame-fest here but haven't we seen a lot of other >> projects come across lately that integrate functionality that matches >> an other project? Why would this be different? > > I don't think it is a problem to have duplicate functionality, > personally. I would just like to hear that the project teams delivering > related projects are talking together and formulating their plans with > each other in mind, cooperating with work on any common dependencies, > etc. At least aware of each other. > There aren't any common dependencies between Openproj and Planner. Anyway, I'll keep my eyes on Planner and keep in touch with the teams. Thanks Jim From Irene.Huang@sun.com Mon Jul 28 00:58:17 2008 Received: from newsunmail1brm.central.sun.com (newsunmail1brm.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.62.245]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6S7wGDt008475 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 00:58:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM (nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.74]) by newsunmail1brm.central.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m6S7wCBf013499 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc-ext@sun.com>; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 01:58:16 -0600 (MDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K4P0040NI518J00@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@Sun.COM); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 00:58:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sineb-mail-2.sun.com ([192.18.19.7]) by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K4P00A37I4Z5PA0@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@Sun.COM); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 00:58:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-apac-05.sun.com (fe-apac-05.sun.com [192.18.19.176] (may be forged)) by sineb-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m6S7xNhf011152 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 07:59:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-apac.sun.com by mail-apac.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) id <0K4P00201I1CFF00@mail-apac.sun.com> (original mail from Irene.Huang@Sun.COM) for lsarc-ext@Sun.COM (ORCPT lsarc-ext@Sun.COM); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:57:37 +0800 (SGT) Received: from [129.158.217.138] by mail-apac.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) with ESMTPSA id <0K4P003MNI3ZJPAX@mail-apac.sun.com>; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:57:36 +0800 (SGT) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:59:08 +0800 From: Irene Huang Subject: Re: Openproj for OpenSolaris [LSARC/2008/464 FastTrack timeout 07/29/2008] In-reply-to: <488D7B15.6040507@sun.com> Sender: Irene.Huang@sun.com To: Jim Li Cc: Brian Cameron , Torrey McMahon , Shi-Ying Irene Huang , lsarc-ext@sun.com Message-id: <1217231948.1774.17.camel@goalie> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.2 Content-type: text/plain Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200807210921.m6L9LvXN008739@sac.sfbay.sun.com> <48887F92.60002@sun.com> <4888A132.9010408@sun.com> <4888B1DA.5090004@sun.com> <488D7B15.6040507@sun.com> Content-Length: 1290 Status: RO X-Status: $$$$ X-UID: 0000000012 Hi, all So the conclusion from the discussion is 1. it doesn't matter to integrate projects with duplicated functionality, we are aiming at providing the users with more choices 2. the project team will work together with project teams of similar project to improve cooperation 3. Mime types of file extensions issue exists in all kind of systems, which should not be a blocking issue for this case. If there's no more issues with this case within 24 hours, I'd like to close this case as approved then. Thanks --Irene On Mon, 2008-07-28 at 15:53 +0800, Jim Li wrote: > Brian: > >> Not to start a flame-fest here but haven't we seen a lot of other > >> projects come across lately that integrate functionality that matches > >> an other project? Why would this be different? > > > > I don't think it is a problem to have duplicate functionality, > > personally. I would just like to hear that the project teams delivering > > related projects are talking together and formulating their plans with > > each other in mind, cooperating with work on any common dependencies, > > etc. At least aware of each other. > > > There aren't any common dependencies between Openproj and Planner. > Anyway, I'll keep my eyes on Planner and keep in touch with the teams. > > Thanks > Jim From carlsonj@phorcys.east.sun.com Mon Jul 28 03:57:46 2008 Received: from sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (sunmail4.Singapore.Sun.COM [129.158.71.19]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6SAvjKA012161 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 03:57:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM (nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.74]) by sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (8.13.4+Sun/8.13.3/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m6SAvamu019417; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 18:57:41 +0800 (SGT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K4P00101QG44D00@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM>; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 03:57:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from phorcys.east.sun.com ([129.148.174.143]) by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K4P00F6RQG32460@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM>; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 03:57:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from phorcys.east.sun.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by phorcys.east.sun.com (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3) with ESMTP id m6SAvcgc027527; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 06:57:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from carlsonj@localhost) by phorcys.east.sun.com (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3/Submit) id m6SAvctr027524; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 06:57:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 06:57:38 -0400 From: James Carlson Subject: Re: Openproj for OpenSolaris [LSARC/2008/464 FastTrack timeout 07/29/2008] In-reply-to: <488D7A33.6030202@sun.com> To: Jim Li Cc: Torrey McMahon , lsarc-ext@sun.com, Shi-Ying Irene Huang Message-id: <18573.42530.862664.5339@gargle.gargle.HOWL> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: VM 7.01 under Emacs 21.3.1 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200807210921.m6L9LvXN008739@sac.sfbay.sun.com> <48887F92.60002@sun.com> <4888A132.9010408@sun.com> <4888B1DA.5090004@sun.com> <4888B358.1090400@sun.com> <488D7A33.6030202@sun.com> Content-Length: 767 Status: RO X-Status: $$$$ X-UID: 0000000013 Jim Li writes: > Torrey: > > Seriously - I agree with you. One thing I'm sure we'll see is fighting > > mime types of file extensions in a lot of cases. > Mime types of file extensions issue exists in all kind of systems, so > IMHO this is not a ARC issue. Can you explain this statement in more detail? How are potential conflicts in a central system registry _not_ an architectural problem for the system? Or are you saying that even though these problems are architectural, this ARC should not handle or review them? If so, who does? -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 From Brian.Cameron@sun.com Mon Jul 28 04:27:16 2008 Received: from sunmail3mpk.sfbay.sun.com (sunmail3mpk.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.52]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6SBQlHG012657 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 04:27:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (nwk-avmta-2.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.6]) by sunmail3mpk.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m6SBQk57006515 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc-ext@sun.com>; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 04:26:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K4P00307RSM4X00@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@Sun.COM); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 04:26:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brmea-mail-1.sun.com ([192.18.98.31]) by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K4P00G9URSJ6JA0@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@Sun.COM); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 04:26:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-amer-10.sun.com ([192.18.109.80]) by brmea-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m6SBQhTs015793 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:26:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0K4P00M01RP55L00@mail-amer.sun.com> (original mail from Brian.Cameron@Sun.COM) for lsarc-ext@Sun.COM (ORCPT lsarc-ext@Sun.COM); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 05:26:43 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [129.156.226.192] by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0K4P00CNFRSHILE0@mail-amer.sun.com>; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 05:26:43 -0600 (MDT) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 06:26:51 -0500 From: Brian Cameron Subject: Re: Openproj for OpenSolaris [LSARC/2008/464 FastTrack timeout 07/29/2008] In-reply-to: <1217231948.1774.17.camel@goalie> Sender: Brian.Cameron@sun.com To: Irene Huang Cc: Jim Li , Torrey McMahon , Shi-Ying Irene Huang , lsarc-ext@sun.com Message-id: <488DACFB.9060202@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200807210921.m6L9LvXN008739@sac.sfbay.sun.com> <48887F92.60002@sun.com> <4888A132.9010408@sun.com> <4888B1DA.5090004@sun.com> <488D7B15.6040507@sun.com> <1217231948.1774.17.camel@goalie> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080701) Content-Length: 962 Status: RO X-Status: $$$$ X-UID: 0000000014 Irene: > So the conclusion from the discussion is > 1. it doesn't matter to integrate projects with duplicated > functionality, we are aiming at providing the users with more choices To be clear, I think that ARC should be told when we integrate things with duplicate functionality with other projects. Sometimes there are architectural issues that need to be considered. When an ARC case highlights how it relates to other projects, I think this helps ARC to decide if there might be any such issues. As long as any such issues are being addressed in a reasonable fashion, then there should not be a problem with providing multiple projects that do the same sort of thing. In general, it is good for teams working on similar projects to have communication and dialog with each other. By highlighting any such relationships in the ARC materials, you help to communicate to ARC that the project teams are working together to an reasonable degree. Brian From Darren.Moffat@Sun.COM Mon Jul 28 04:55:48 2008 Received: from sunmail5.uk.sun.com (sunmail5.UK.Sun.COM [129.156.85.165]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6SBtlxp013216 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 04:55:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (brm-avmta-1.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.4.11]) by sunmail5.uk.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m6SBtjPi016896 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc-ext@sun.com>; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:55:47 +0100 (BST) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K4P0010PT4X6H00@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@Sun.COM); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 05:55:45 -0600 (MDT) Received: from gmp-eb-inf-1.sun.com ([192.18.6.21]) by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K4P00CL6T4VHQ90@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@Sun.COM); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 05:55:44 -0600 (MDT) Received: from fe-emea-09.sun.com (gmp-eb-lb-2-fe2.eu.sun.com [192.18.6.11]) by gmp-eb-inf-1.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m6SBthtF027128 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:55:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-emea-09.sun.com by fe-emea-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0K4P00A01SQ1VQ00@fe-emea-09.sun.com> (original mail from Darren.Moffat@Sun.COM) for lsarc-ext@Sun.COM (ORCPT lsarc-ext@Sun.COM); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:55:43 +0100 (BST) Received: from [129.156.173.21] by fe-emea-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0K4P006XOT4R3M10@fe-emea-09.sun.com>; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:55:40 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:55:39 +0100 From: Darren J Moffat Subject: Re: Openproj for OpenSolaris [LSARC/2008/464 FastTrack timeout 07/29/2008] In-reply-to: <488D7A33.6030202@sun.com> Sender: Darren.Moffat@Sun.COM To: Jim Li Cc: Torrey McMahon , lsarc-ext@Sun.COM, Shi-Ying Irene Huang Message-id: <488DB3BB.7070108@Sun.COM> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200807210921.m6L9LvXN008739@sac.sfbay.sun.com> <48887F92.60002@sun.com> <4888A132.9010408@sun.com> <4888B1DA.5090004@sun.com> <4888B358.1090400@sun.com> <488D7A33.6030202@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080630) Content-Length: 1653 Status: RO X-Status: $$$$ X-UID: 0000000015 Jim Li wrote: > Torrey: >>>> Not to start a flame-fest here but haven't we seen a lot of other >>>> projects come across lately that integrate functionality that >>>> matches an other project? Why would this be different? >>> I don't think it is a problem to have duplicate functionality, >>> personally. I would just like to hear that the project teams delivering >>> related projects are talking together and formulating their plans with >>> each other in mind, cooperating with work on any common dependencies, >>> etc. At least aware of each other. >> All of engineering gets the ARC case submittal forms, right? ;) >> >> Seriously - I agree with you. One thing I'm sure we'll see is fighting >> mime types of file extensions in a lot of cases. > Mime types of file extensions issue exists in all kind of systems, so > IMHO this is not a ARC issue. This is actually a place where there should be some architectural input. If there are two tools A and B that have an overlap in the mime types they operate on their is architectural impact in which is the default. There may also be architectural impact on how the user should change which is the default tool for a given mime type. I suspect that in most cases the management tool for the mime types is already covered by GNOME and/or Firefox/Thunberbird. However we should know and document at least in an ARC case which tool is the default if there are multiple for a given mime type. For example if we ship A B and C that are all audio player tools which one should be the default (for a new user environment) for playing a given audio file format ? -- Darren J Moffat From Torrey.McMahon@sun.com Mon Jul 28 06:01:17 2008 Received: from sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (sunmail4.Singapore.Sun.COM [129.158.71.19]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6SD1GWW014611 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 06:01:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (brm-avmta-1.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.4.11]) by sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (8.13.4+Sun/8.13.3/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m6SD1C9H001224 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc-ext@sun.com>; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 21:01:16 +0800 (SGT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K4P0050TW63OF00@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@Sun.COM); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 07:01:15 -0600 (MDT) Received: from brmea-mail-1.sun.com ([192.18.98.31]) by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K4P00C43W61HXD0@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@Sun.COM); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 07:01:14 -0600 (MDT) Received: from fe-amer-10.sun.com ([192.18.109.80]) by brmea-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m6SD1DF6014204 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:01:13 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0K4P00I01VUGYW00@mail-amer.sun.com> (original mail from Torrey.McMahon@Sun.COM) for lsarc-ext@Sun.COM (ORCPT lsarc-ext@Sun.COM); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 07:01:13 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [192.168.0.199] ([69.143.4.246]) by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0K4P00IPNW60BD80@mail-amer.sun.com>; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 07:01:13 -0600 (MDT) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 09:01:13 -0400 From: Torrey McMahon Subject: Re: Openproj for OpenSolaris [LSARC/2008/464 FastTrack timeout 07/29/2008] In-reply-to: <488D7A33.6030202@sun.com> Sender: Torrey.McMahon@sun.com To: Jim Li Cc: Brian Cameron , Shi-Ying Irene Huang , lsarc-ext@sun.com Message-id: <488DC319.90506@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200807210921.m6L9LvXN008739@sac.sfbay.sun.com> <48887F92.60002@sun.com> <4888A132.9010408@sun.com> <4888B1DA.5090004@sun.com> <4888B358.1090400@sun.com> <488D7A33.6030202@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708) Content-Length: 1551 Status: RO X-Status: $$$$ X-UID: 0000000016 Jim Li wrote: > Torrey: >>>> Not to start a flame-fest here but haven't we seen a lot of other >>>> projects come across lately that integrate functionality that >>>> matches an other project? Why would this be different? >>> >>> I don't think it is a problem to have duplicate functionality, >>> personally. I would just like to hear that the project teams >>> delivering >>> related projects are talking together and formulating their plans with >>> each other in mind, cooperating with work on any common dependencies, >>> etc. At least aware of each other. >> >> All of engineering gets the ARC case submittal forms, right? ;) >> >> Seriously - I agree with you. One thing I'm sure we'll see is >> fighting mime types of file extensions in a lot of cases. > Mime types of file extensions issue exists in all kind of systems, so > IMHO this is not a ARC issue. I'm not sure its *not* an ARC issue but I'm not raising it for this case. My point is that as we - And this is a generalization - add every single piece of FOSS software we can get our hands on to [Open]Solaris we're going to see more conflicts then we did in the past. The past being known for a lot less duplication and an unwillingness to have more then one tool do the same job. Media players are the easy example. How many have we integrated now? How is a user going to select the one they want and make it the default? Again, not a question for this case or this project team, but something we should figure out in the near term....if someone hasn't already. From Jim.Li@sun.com Mon Jul 28 09:25:22 2008 Received: from sunmail5.uk.sun.com (sunmail5.UK.Sun.COM [129.156.85.165]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6SGPLiA021661 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 09:25:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (nwk-avmta-2.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.6]) by sunmail5.uk.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m6SGPCWc015829 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc-ext@sun.com>; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 17:25:20 +0100 (BST) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K4Q00E5P5M4AR00@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@Sun.COM); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 09:25:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sineb-mail-2.sun.com ([192.18.19.7]) by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K4Q007FS5LZ2XC0@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@Sun.COM); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 09:25:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-apac-06.sun.com (fe-apac-06.sun.com [192.18.19.177] (may be forged)) by sineb-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m6SGQN7P002545 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 16:26:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-apac.sun.com by mail-apac.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) id <0K4Q00D0159FCT00@mail-apac.sun.com> (original mail from Jim.Li@Sun.COM) for lsarc-ext@Sun.COM (ORCPT lsarc-ext@Sun.COM); Tue, 29 Jul 2008 00:22:39 +0800 (SGT) Received: from [192.168.8.100] ([221.218.166.228]) by mail-apac.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) with ESMTPSA id <0K4Q009BW5HL8AYH@mail-apac.sun.com>; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 00:22:39 +0800 (SGT) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 00:25:02 +0800 From: Jim Li Subject: Re: Openproj for OpenSolaris [LSARC/2008/464 FastTrack timeout 07/29/2008] In-reply-to: <18573.42530.862664.5339@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Sender: Jim.Li@sun.com To: James Carlson Cc: Torrey McMahon , lsarc-ext@sun.com, Shi-Ying Irene Huang Message-id: <488DF2DE.6060509@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200807210921.m6L9LvXN008739@sac.sfbay.sun.com> <48887F92.60002@sun.com> <4888A132.9010408@sun.com> <4888B1DA.5090004@sun.com> <4888B358.1090400@sun.com> <488D7A33.6030202@sun.com> <18573.42530.862664.5339@gargle.gargle.HOWL> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080616) Content-Length: 1026 Status: RO X-Status: $$$$ X-UID: 0000000017 James Carlson wrote: > Jim Li writes: > >> Torrey: >> >>> Seriously - I agree with you. One thing I'm sure we'll see is fighting >>> mime types of file extensions in a lot of cases. >>> >> Mime types of file extensions issue exists in all kind of systems, so >> IMHO this is not a ARC issue. >> > > Can you explain this statement in more detail? How are potential > conflicts in a central system registry _not_ an architectural problem > for the system? > > I means that all systems that have different applications which deal with the same file extensions has this kind of problem. From my understanding and knowledge, the administrator or users have the right to decide which applications should be used for the specific file extensions. I admit that it's an architectural problem cause we ship all this kind application. > Or are you saying that even though these problems are architectural, > this ARC should not handle or review them? If so, who does? > > Absolutely not. Thanks Jim From Jim.Li@Sun.COM Mon Jul 28 09:32:17 2008 Received: from newsunmail1brm.central.sun.com (newsunmail1brm.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.62.245]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6SGWGX3021868 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 09:32:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM (nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.74]) by newsunmail1brm.central.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m6SGWGeB048514 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc-ext@sun.com>; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 10:32:16 -0600 (MDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K4Q00C055XSD800@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@Sun.COM); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 09:32:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sineb-mail-1.sun.com ([192.18.19.6]) by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K4Q00E835XQCOE0@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@Sun.COM); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 09:32:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-apac-05.sun.com (fe-apac-05.sun.com [192.18.19.176] (may be forged)) by sineb-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m6SGWkdW007917 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 16:32:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-apac.sun.com by mail-apac.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) id <0K4Q005015W9MG00@mail-apac.sun.com> (original mail from Jim.Li@Sun.COM) for lsarc-ext@Sun.COM (ORCPT lsarc-ext@Sun.COM); Tue, 29 Jul 2008 00:31:40 +0800 (SGT) Received: from [192.168.8.100] ([221.218.165.159]) by mail-apac.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) with ESMTPSA id <0K4Q00MI85WQ9UR0@mail-apac.sun.com>; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 00:31:40 +0800 (SGT) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 00:32:09 +0800 From: Jim Li Subject: Re: Openproj for OpenSolaris [LSARC/2008/464 FastTrack timeout 07/29/2008] In-reply-to: <488DB3BB.7070108@Sun.COM> Sender: Jim.Li@Sun.COM To: Darren J Moffat Cc: Torrey McMahon , lsarc-ext@Sun.COM, Shi-Ying Irene Huang Message-id: <488DF489.4020604@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200807210921.m6L9LvXN008739@sac.sfbay.sun.com> <48887F92.60002@sun.com> <4888A132.9010408@sun.com> <4888B1DA.5090004@sun.com> <4888B358.1090400@sun.com> <488D7A33.6030202@sun.com> <488DB3BB.7070108@Sun.COM> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080616) Content-Length: 1968 Status: RO X-Status: $$$$ X-UID: 0000000018 Darren J Moffat wrote: > Jim Li wrote: >> Torrey: >>>>> Not to start a flame-fest here but haven't we seen a lot of other >>>>> projects come across lately that integrate functionality that >>>>> matches an other project? Why would this be different? >>>> I don't think it is a problem to have duplicate functionality, >>>> personally. I would just like to hear that the project teams >>>> delivering >>>> related projects are talking together and formulating their plans with >>>> each other in mind, cooperating with work on any common dependencies, >>>> etc. At least aware of each other. >>> All of engineering gets the ARC case submittal forms, right? ;) >>> >>> Seriously - I agree with you. One thing I'm sure we'll see is >>> fighting mime types of file extensions in a lot of cases. >> Mime types of file extensions issue exists in all kind of systems, so >> IMHO this is not a ARC issue. > > > This is actually a place where there should be some architectural > input. If there are two tools A and B that have an overlap in the > mime types they operate on their is architectural impact in which is > the default. There may also be architectural impact on how the user > should change which is the default tool for a given mime type. I > suspect that in most cases the management tool for the mime types is > already covered by GNOME and/or Firefox/Thunberbird. However we > should know and document at least in an ARC case which tool is the > default if there are multiple for a given mime type. > Great suggestion. we should discuss with planner team if we have the overlap of the project file extension, if so, which tools should be the default one that deal with this file extension and document this kind of stuff in our ARC case, correct? Thanks Jim > For example if we ship A B and C that are all audio player tools which > one should be the default (for a new user environment) for playing a > given audio file format ? > From edh@sun.com Mon Jul 28 13:34:24 2008 Received: from newsunmail1brm.central.sun.com (newsunmail1brm.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.62.245]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6SKYOcT000674 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:34:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM (nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.74]) by newsunmail1brm.central.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m6SKYLb9000076 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc-ext@sun.com>; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 14:34:23 -0600 (MDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K4Q00E03H5BEX00@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@sun.com); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:34:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sca-es-mail-1.sun.com ([192.18.43.132]) by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K4Q00CLIH5BLH10@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@sun.com); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:34:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-sfbay-10.sun.com ([192.18.43.129]) by sca-es-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m6SKYMKq001051 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:34:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-sfbay-10.sun.com by fe-sfbay-10.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0K4Q00301G02T600@fe-sfbay-10.sun.com> (original mail from edh@sun.com) for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@sun.com); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:34:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [129.146.72.132] by fe-sfbay-10.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0K4Q00C5RH51B5C0@fe-sfbay-10.sun.com>; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:34:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:33:10 -0700 From: Edward Hunter Subject: Re: Openproj for OpenSolaris [LSARC/2008/464 FastTrack timeout 07/29/2008] In-reply-to: <488DC319.90506@sun.com> Sender: Ed.Hunter@sun.com To: Torrey McMahon Cc: Jim Li , Brian Cameron , Shi-Ying Irene Huang , lsarc-ext@sun.com Message-id: <488E2D06.5010201@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200807210921.m6L9LvXN008739@sac.sfbay.sun.com> <48887F92.60002@sun.com> <4888A132.9010408@sun.com> <4888B1DA.5090004@sun.com> <4888B358.1090400@sun.com> <488D7A33.6030202@sun.com> <488DC319.90506@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080422) Status: RO Content-Length: 2472 It seems like there is a business issue and an architectural issue combined here. The business issue is which consumer of the mime type (or media format) does Sun pick as the winner. That would be the default out of the box. We could of course choose not to pick one and that is a decision too. :-) The architectural question seems to be "if you pick a winner, does that have a bad effect on the losers". In other words does picking A prevent B and C from functioning. It sounds like in this case the business case is to not pick a winner since we're integrating both bits of software. What is not clear to me is the side effects when the end user chooses between the two (or three) choices. In particular if different users on the same system choose different defaults is that a problem? Sounds like no but I am not sure. -edh Torrey McMahon wrote: > Jim Li wrote: >> Torrey: >>>>> Not to start a flame-fest here but haven't we seen a lot of other >>>>> projects come across lately that integrate functionality that >>>>> matches an other project? Why would this be different? >>>> >>>> I don't think it is a problem to have duplicate functionality, >>>> personally. I would just like to hear that the project teams >>>> delivering >>>> related projects are talking together and formulating their plans with >>>> each other in mind, cooperating with work on any common dependencies, >>>> etc. At least aware of each other. >>> >>> All of engineering gets the ARC case submittal forms, right? ;) >>> >>> Seriously - I agree with you. One thing I'm sure we'll see is >>> fighting mime types of file extensions in a lot of cases. >> Mime types of file extensions issue exists in all kind of systems, so >> IMHO this is not a ARC issue. > > I'm not sure its *not* an ARC issue but I'm not raising it for this > case. My point is that as we - And this is a generalization - add > every single piece of FOSS software we can get our hands on to > [Open]Solaris we're going to see more conflicts then we did in the > past. The past being known for a lot less duplication and an > unwillingness to have more then one tool do the same job. > > Media players are the easy example. How many have we integrated now? > How is a user going to select the one they want and make it the > default? Again, not a question for this case or this project team, but > something we should figure out in the near term....if someone hasn't > already. > > > From Torrey.McMahon@sun.com Mon Jul 28 13:51:16 2008 Received: from sunmail5.uk.sun.com (sunmail5.UK.Sun.COM [129.156.85.165]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6SKpGi5001180 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:51:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM (nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.74]) by sunmail5.uk.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m6SKpDEW016099 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc-ext@sun.com>; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 21:51:15 +0100 (BST) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K4Q00G01HXE6D00@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@sun.com); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:51:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brmea-mail-1.sun.com ([192.18.98.31]) by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K4Q00C57HXELJ30@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@sun.com); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:51:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-amer-09.sun.com ([192.18.109.79]) by brmea-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m6SKpDtK001431 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:51:13 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0K4Q00001F4LPP00@mail-amer.sun.com> (original mail from Torrey.McMahon@Sun.COM) for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@sun.com); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 14:51:13 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [192.168.0.199] ([69.143.4.246]) by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0K4Q00FAVHX65120@mail-amer.sun.com>; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 14:51:07 -0600 (MDT) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 16:51:06 -0400 From: Torrey McMahon Subject: Re: Openproj for OpenSolaris [LSARC/2008/464 FastTrack timeout 07/29/2008] In-reply-to: <488E2D06.5010201@sun.com> Sender: Torrey.McMahon@sun.com To: Edward Hunter Cc: Jim Li , Brian Cameron , Shi-Ying Irene Huang , lsarc-ext@sun.com Message-id: <488E313A.1080006@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200807210921.m6L9LvXN008739@sac.sfbay.sun.com> <48887F92.60002@sun.com> <4888A132.9010408@sun.com> <4888B1DA.5090004@sun.com> <4888B358.1090400@sun.com> <488D7A33.6030202@sun.com> <488DC319.90506@sun.com> <488E2D06.5010201@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708) Status: RO Content-Length: 3325 Usually the "default app" is a user preference. As long as there is no conflict between the apps I think its ok to have as many as people want. I think the important part is making sure the default is easily changeable. I hate to use it as an example but Windows has the default programs control panel and also has some right menu selections that let you "Open file with..." type functionality so you can override the default when required. I'm pretty sure that functionality is already in gnome but it would be nice to have that confirmed as we add different packages with overlapping functionality. Which one we decide to make default is an other question. I'd vote "None of the above" and make the user pick except in the most obvious cases. Edward Hunter wrote: > It seems like there is a business issue and an architectural issue > combined here. The business issue is which consumer of the mime type > (or media format) does Sun pick as the winner. That would be the > default out of the box. We could of course choose not to pick one and > that is a decision too. :-) > > The architectural question seems to be "if you pick a winner, does > that have a bad effect on the losers". In other words does picking A > prevent B and C from functioning. It sounds like in this case the > business case is to not pick a winner since we're integrating both > bits of software. What is not clear to me is the side effects when > the end user chooses between the two (or three) choices. In > particular if different users on the same system choose different > defaults is that a problem? Sounds like no but I am not sure. > -edh > > > Torrey McMahon wrote: >> Jim Li wrote: >>> Torrey: >>>>>> Not to start a flame-fest here but haven't we seen a lot of other >>>>>> projects come across lately that integrate functionality that >>>>>> matches an other project? Why would this be different? >>>>> >>>>> I don't think it is a problem to have duplicate functionality, >>>>> personally. I would just like to hear that the project teams >>>>> delivering >>>>> related projects are talking together and formulating their plans >>>>> with >>>>> each other in mind, cooperating with work on any common dependencies, >>>>> etc. At least aware of each other. >>>> >>>> All of engineering gets the ARC case submittal forms, right? ;) >>>> >>>> Seriously - I agree with you. One thing I'm sure we'll see is >>>> fighting mime types of file extensions in a lot of cases. >>> Mime types of file extensions issue exists in all kind of systems, >>> so IMHO this is not a ARC issue. >> >> I'm not sure its *not* an ARC issue but I'm not raising it for this >> case. My point is that as we - And this is a generalization - add >> every single piece of FOSS software we can get our hands on to >> [Open]Solaris we're going to see more conflicts then we did in the >> past. The past being known for a lot less duplication and an >> unwillingness to have more then one tool do the same job. >> >> Media players are the easy example. How many have we integrated now? >> How is a user going to select the one they want and make it the >> default? Again, not a question for this case or this project team, >> but something we should figure out in the near term....if someone >> hasn't already. >> >> >> From jan@eng.Sun.COM Mon Jul 28 14:26:12 2008 Received: from sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (sunmail4.Singapore.Sun.COM [129.158.71.19]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6SLQB2Q003656 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 14:26:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (nwk-avmta-2.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.6]) by sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (8.13.4+Sun/8.13.3/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m6SLQ0nt013560; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 05:26:06 +0800 (SGT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K4Q0030DJJGMD00@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com>; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 14:26:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jurassic.eng.sun.com ([129.146.228.50]) by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K4Q00MDEJJFUG70@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com>; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 14:26:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.7.250.218] (punchin-client-10-7-250-218.SFBay.Sun.COM [10.7.250.218]) by jurassic.eng.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6SLQ38r391595; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 14:26:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 14:25:59 -0700 From: Joseph A Townsend Subject: Re: Openproj for OpenSolaris [LSARC/2008/464 FastTrack timeout 07/29/2008] In-reply-to: <488DACFB.9060202@sun.com> To: Brian Cameron Cc: Irene Huang , Jim Li , Torrey McMahon , Shi-Ying Irene Huang , lsarc-ext@sun.com Message-id: <488E3967.9020108@eng> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200807210921.m6L9LvXN008739@sac.sfbay.sun.com> <48887F92.60002@sun.com> <4888A132.9010408@sun.com> <4888B1DA.5090004@sun.com> <488D7B15.6040507@sun.com> <1217231948.1774.17.camel@goalie> <488DACFB.9060202@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20071203) Status: RO Content-Length: 1408 It seem to me that it would be helpful to have a registry of mine extensions which projects could check against. With planner and openproj these projects have similar functionality, but it is at least theoretically possible to have two very different projects use the same mime extensions. I suspect that on other systems, the last piece of software installed wins. Joe Townsend Brian Cameron wrote: > > Irene: > >> So the conclusion from the discussion is 1. it doesn't matter to >> integrate projects with duplicated >> functionality, we are aiming at providing the users with more choices > > To be clear, I think that ARC should be told when we integrate things > with duplicate functionality with other projects. Sometimes there are > architectural issues that need to be considered. When an ARC case > highlights how it relates to other projects, I think this helps ARC to > decide if there might be any such issues. As long as any such > issues are being addressed in a reasonable fashion, then there should > not be a problem with providing multiple projects that do the same sort > of thing. > > In general, it is good for teams working on similar projects to have > communication and dialog with each other. By highlighting any such > relationships in the ARC materials, you help to communicate to ARC > that the project teams are working together to an reasonable degree. > > Brian From Jim.Li@sun.com Wed Jul 30 02:28:11 2008 Received: from sunmail3mpk.sfbay.sun.com (sunmail3mpk.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.52]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6U9SBjT001268 for ; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 02:28:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM (nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.74]) by sunmail3mpk.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m6U9SBNC000053 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc-ext@sun.com>; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 02:28:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K4T0061ZBMXYB00@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@sun.com); Wed, 30 Jul 2008 02:28:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sineb-mail-2.sun.com ([192.18.19.7]) by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K4T00278BMVZ640@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@sun.com); Wed, 30 Jul 2008 02:28:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-apac-06.sun.com (fe-apac-06.sun.com [192.18.19.177] (may be forged)) by sineb-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m6U9S7Yk014174 for ; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:28:07 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-apac.sun.com by mail-apac.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) id <0K4T00J01BJEOY00@mail-apac.sun.com> (original mail from Jim.Li@Sun.COM) for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@sun.com); Wed, 30 Jul 2008 17:28:07 +0800 (SGT) Received: from [129.158.217.192] by mail-apac.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) with ESMTPSA id <0K4T0095MBMP8APM@mail-apac.sun.com>; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 17:28:07 +0800 (SGT) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 17:27:24 +0800 From: Jim Li Subject: Re: Openproj for OpenSolaris [LSARC/2008/464 FastTrack timeout 07/29/2008] In-reply-to: <488E313A.1080006@sun.com> Sender: Jim.Li@sun.com To: Torrey McMahon Cc: Edward Hunter , Brian Cameron , Shi-Ying Irene Huang , lsarc-ext@sun.com Message-id: <489033FC.8060007@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200807210921.m6L9LvXN008739@sac.sfbay.sun.com> <48887F92.60002@sun.com> <4888A132.9010408@sun.com> <4888B1DA.5090004@sun.com> <4888B358.1090400@sun.com> <488D7A33.6030202@sun.com> <488DC319.90506@sun.com> <488E2D06.5010201@sun.com> <488E313A.1080006@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20080225) Status: RO Content-Length: 4112 I've updated the one page and summarized the question and answers. Q1. There are some similar functionality projects. I'v listed the known project with similar function in the ARC material. Q2. Mime type file extension conflicts. There is a potential Mime Type conflicts when integrating projects with overlap functionality. Although Planner (LSARC/2008/454) and Openproj are both project management tools, but they have their own file format and different file extensions, *.planner and *mrprojects for Planner, *.pod for Openproj. There are no Mime type conflicts for Planner and Openproj. I'll keep my eyes on this kind of stuff in future. Thanks Jim > Usually the "default app" is a user preference. As long as there is no > conflict between the apps I think its ok to have as many as people > want. I think the important part is making sure the default is easily > changeable. I hate to use it as an example but Windows has the default > programs control panel and also has some right menu selections that > let you "Open file with..." type functionality so you can override the > default when required. I'm pretty sure that functionality is already > in gnome but it would be nice to have that confirmed as we add > different packages with overlapping functionality. > > Which one we decide to make default is an other question. I'd vote > "None of the above" and make the user pick except in the most obvious > cases. > > Edward Hunter wrote: >> It seems like there is a business issue and an architectural issue >> combined here. The business issue is which consumer of the mime type >> (or media format) does Sun pick as the winner. That would be the >> default out of the box. We could of course choose not to pick one >> and that is a decision too. :-) >> >> The architectural question seems to be "if you pick a winner, does >> that have a bad effect on the losers". In other words does picking A >> prevent B and C from functioning. It sounds like in this case the >> business case is to not pick a winner since we're integrating both >> bits of software. What is not clear to me is the side effects when >> the end user chooses between the two (or three) choices. In >> particular if different users on the same system choose different >> defaults is that a problem? Sounds like no but I am not sure. >> -edh >> >> >> Torrey McMahon wrote: >>> Jim Li wrote: >>>> Torrey: >>>>>>> Not to start a flame-fest here but haven't we seen a lot of >>>>>>> other projects come across lately that integrate functionality >>>>>>> that matches an other project? Why would this be different? >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't think it is a problem to have duplicate functionality, >>>>>> personally. I would just like to hear that the project teams >>>>>> delivering >>>>>> related projects are talking together and formulating their plans >>>>>> with >>>>>> each other in mind, cooperating with work on any common >>>>>> dependencies, >>>>>> etc. At least aware of each other. >>>>> >>>>> All of engineering gets the ARC case submittal forms, right? ;) >>>>> >>>>> Seriously - I agree with you. One thing I'm sure we'll see is >>>>> fighting mime types of file extensions in a lot of cases. >>>> Mime types of file extensions issue exists in all kind of systems, >>>> so IMHO this is not a ARC issue. >>> >>> I'm not sure its *not* an ARC issue but I'm not raising it for this >>> case. My point is that as we - And this is a generalization - add >>> every single piece of FOSS software we can get our hands on to >>> [Open]Solaris we're going to see more conflicts then we did in the >>> past. The past being known for a lot less duplication and an >>> unwillingness to have more then one tool do the same job. >>> >>> Media players are the easy example. How many have we integrated now? >>> How is a user going to select the one they want and make it the >>> default? Again, not a question for this case or this project team, >>> but something we should figure out in the near term....if someone >>> hasn't already. >>> >>> >>> > From jan@eng.Sun.COM Wed Jul 30 10:26:23 2008 Received: from newsunmail1brm.central.sun.com (newsunmail1brm.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.62.245]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6UHQNhi023241 for ; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:26:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (brm-avmta-1.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.4.11]) by newsunmail1brm.central.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m6UHQ7nE021049; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:26:13 -0600 (MDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K4T00523XRO0R00@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com>; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:26:12 -0600 (MDT) Received: from jurassic.eng.sun.com ([129.146.56.36]) by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K4T003CDXRMS510@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com>; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:26:10 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [129.146.228.203] (petrus.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.228.203]) by jurassic.eng.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6UHQ4jK460140; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:26:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:26:25 -0700 From: Joseph A Townsend Subject: Re: Openproj for OpenSolaris [LSARC/2008/464 FastTrack timeout 07/29/2008] In-reply-to: <489033FC.8060007@sun.com> To: Jim Li Cc: Torrey McMahon , Edward Hunter , Brian Cameron , Shi-Ying Irene Huang , lsarc-ext@sun.com Reply-to: joseph.townsend@sun.com Message-id: <4890A441.1050809@eng> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200807210921.m6L9LvXN008739@sac.sfbay.sun.com> <48887F92.60002@sun.com> <4888A132.9010408@sun.com> <4888B1DA.5090004@sun.com> <4888B358.1090400@sun.com> <488D7A33.6030202@sun.com> <488DC319.90506@sun.com> <488E2D06.5010201@sun.com> <488E313A.1080006@sun.com> <489033FC.8060007@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080325) Status: RO Content-Length: 4374 I believe that openproj can use MS project data files. If this is true what mime type is used for these files. Thanks in advance Joe Townsend Jim Li wrote: > I've updated the one page and summarized the question and answers. > > Q1. There are some similar functionality projects. > > I'v listed the known project with similar function in the ARC > material. > > Q2. Mime type file extension conflicts. > There is a potential Mime Type conflicts when integrating > projects with > overlap functionality. Although Planner (LSARC/2008/454) and Openproj > are both project management tools, but they have their own file format > and different file extensions, *.planner and *mrprojects for Planner, > *.pod for Openproj. There are no Mime type conflicts for Planner > and Openproj. > I'll keep my eyes on this kind of stuff in future. > > Thanks > Jim > > >> Usually the "default app" is a user preference. As long as there is >> no conflict between the apps I think its ok to have as many as people >> want. I think the important part is making sure the default is easily >> changeable. I hate to use it as an example but Windows has the >> default programs control panel and also has some right menu >> selections that let you "Open file with..." type functionality so you >> can override the default when required. I'm pretty sure that >> functionality is already in gnome but it would be nice to have that >> confirmed as we add different packages with overlapping functionality. >> >> Which one we decide to make default is an other question. I'd vote >> "None of the above" and make the user pick except in the most obvious >> cases. >> >> Edward Hunter wrote: >>> It seems like there is a business issue and an architectural issue >>> combined here. The business issue is which consumer of the mime >>> type (or media format) does Sun pick as the winner. That would be >>> the default out of the box. We could of course choose not to pick >>> one and that is a decision too. :-) >>> >>> The architectural question seems to be "if you pick a winner, does >>> that have a bad effect on the losers". In other words does picking >>> A prevent B and C from functioning. It sounds like in this case the >>> business case is to not pick a winner since we're integrating both >>> bits of software. What is not clear to me is the side effects when >>> the end user chooses between the two (or three) choices. In >>> particular if different users on the same system choose different >>> defaults is that a problem? Sounds like no but I am not sure. >>> -edh >>> >>> >>> Torrey McMahon wrote: >>>> Jim Li wrote: >>>>> Torrey: >>>>>>>> Not to start a flame-fest here but haven't we seen a lot of >>>>>>>> other projects come across lately that integrate functionality >>>>>>>> that matches an other project? Why would this be different? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't think it is a problem to have duplicate functionality, >>>>>>> personally. I would just like to hear that the project teams >>>>>>> delivering >>>>>>> related projects are talking together and formulating their >>>>>>> plans with >>>>>>> each other in mind, cooperating with work on any common >>>>>>> dependencies, >>>>>>> etc. At least aware of each other. >>>>>> >>>>>> All of engineering gets the ARC case submittal forms, right? ;) >>>>>> >>>>>> Seriously - I agree with you. One thing I'm sure we'll see is >>>>>> fighting mime types of file extensions in a lot of cases. >>>>> Mime types of file extensions issue exists in all kind of systems, >>>>> so IMHO this is not a ARC issue. >>>> >>>> I'm not sure its *not* an ARC issue but I'm not raising it for this >>>> case. My point is that as we - And this is a generalization - add >>>> every single piece of FOSS software we can get our hands on to >>>> [Open]Solaris we're going to see more conflicts then we did in the >>>> past. The past being known for a lot less duplication and an >>>> unwillingness to have more then one tool do the same job. >>>> >>>> Media players are the easy example. How many have we integrated >>>> now? How is a user going to select the one they want and make it >>>> the default? Again, not a question for this case or this project >>>> team, but something we should figure out in the near term....if >>>> someone hasn't already. >>>> >>>> >>>> >> > From Jim.Li@sun.com Wed Jul 30 22:24:19 2008 Received: from sunmail5.uk.sun.com (sunmail5.UK.Sun.COM [129.156.85.165]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6V5OIUS019562 for ; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 22:24:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM (nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.74]) by sunmail5.uk.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m6V5O8Ut029512 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc-ext@sun.com>; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 06:24:17 +0100 (BST) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K4U00L01V0FK600@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@sun.com); Wed, 30 Jul 2008 22:24:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sineb-mail-1.sun.com ([192.18.19.6]) by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K4U00L1KV0EDV00@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@sun.com); Wed, 30 Jul 2008 22:24:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-apac-06.sun.com (fe-apac-06.sun.com [192.18.19.177] (may be forged)) by sineb-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m6V5OESU000609 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 05:24:14 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-apac.sun.com by mail-apac.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) id <0K4U00M01UUX4G00@mail-apac.sun.com> (original mail from Jim.Li@Sun.COM) for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@sun.com); Thu, 31 Jul 2008 13:24:14 +0800 (SGT) Received: from [129.158.217.236] by mail-apac.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) with ESMTPSA id <0K4U00FK7V07QYY2@mail-apac.sun.com>; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 13:24:14 +0800 (SGT) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 13:40:10 +0800 From: Jim Li Subject: Re: Openproj for OpenSolaris [LSARC/2008/464 FastTrack timeout 07/29/2008] In-reply-to: <4890A441.1050809@eng> Sender: Jim.Li@sun.com To: Joseph.Townsend@sun.com Cc: Torrey McMahon , Edward Hunter , Brian Cameron , Shi-Ying Irene Huang , lsarc-ext@sun.com Message-id: <4891503A.5070605@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=GB2312 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en, zh, de X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200807210921.m6L9LvXN008739@sac.sfbay.sun.com> <48887F92.60002@sun.com> <4888A132.9010408@sun.com> <4888B1DA.5090004@sun.com> <4888B358.1090400@sun.com> <488D7A33.6030202@sun.com> <488DC319.90506@sun.com> <488E2D06.5010201@sun.com> <488E313A.1080006@sun.com> <489033FC.8060007@sun.com> <4890A441.1050809@eng> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; zh-CN; rv:1.7) Gecko/20041102 Status: RO Content-Length: 4813 Joseph A Townsend wrote: > I believe that openproj can use MS project data files. If this is true > what mime type is used for these files. You are right. Openproj supports multiple project data files, include MS project(*.mpp, *.mpx), MS project XML files (*.xml), and Gnome Planner(*.planner). users can select what kind of project file they want to open from proejcts filter of Open dialog. Openproj only contains *.pod file extension in it's mime type. Thanks Jim > > Thanks in advance > > Joe Townsend > > > Jim Li wrote: > >> I've updated the one page and summarized the question and answers. >> >> Q1. There are some similar functionality projects. >> >> I'v listed the known project with similar function in the ARC material. >> >> Q2. Mime type file extension conflicts. >> There is a potential Mime Type conflicts when integrating projects with >> overlap functionality. Although Planner (LSARC/2008/454) and Openproj >> are both project management tools, but they have their own file format >> and different file extensions, *.planner and *mrprojects for Planner, >> *.pod for Openproj. There are no Mime type conflicts for Planner and >> Openproj. >> I'll keep my eyes on this kind of stuff in future. >> >> Thanks >> Jim >> >> >>> Usually the "default app" is a user preference. As long as there is >>> no conflict between the apps I think its ok to have as many as >>> people want. I think the important part is making sure the default >>> is easily changeable. I hate to use it as an example but Windows has >>> the default programs control panel and also has some right menu >>> selections that let you "Open file with..." type functionality so >>> you can override the default when required. I'm pretty sure that >>> functionality is already in gnome but it would be nice to have that >>> confirmed as we add different packages with overlapping functionality. >>> >>> Which one we decide to make default is an other question. I'd vote >>> "None of the above" and make the user pick except in the most >>> obvious cases. >>> >>> Edward Hunter wrote: >>> >>>> It seems like there is a business issue and an architectural issue >>>> combined here. The business issue is which consumer of the mime >>>> type (or media format) does Sun pick as the winner. That would be >>>> the default out of the box. We could of course choose not to pick >>>> one and that is a decision too. :-) >>>> >>>> The architectural question seems to be "if you pick a winner, does >>>> that have a bad effect on the losers". In other words does picking >>>> A prevent B and C from functioning. It sounds like in this case the >>>> business case is to not pick a winner since we're integrating both >>>> bits of software. What is not clear to me is the side effects when >>>> the end user chooses between the two (or three) choices. In >>>> particular if different users on the same system choose different >>>> defaults is that a problem? Sounds like no but I am not sure. >>>> -edh >>>> >>>> >>>> Torrey McMahon wrote: >>>> >>>>> Jim Li wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Torrey: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Not to start a flame-fest here but haven't we seen a lot of >>>>>>>>> other projects come across lately that integrate functionality >>>>>>>>> that matches an other project? Why would this be different? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't think it is a problem to have duplicate functionality, >>>>>>>> personally. I would just like to hear that the project teams >>>>>>>> delivering >>>>>>>> related projects are talking together and formulating their >>>>>>>> plans with >>>>>>>> each other in mind, cooperating with work on any common >>>>>>>> dependencies, >>>>>>>> etc. At least aware of each other. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All of engineering gets the ARC case submittal forms, right? ;) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Seriously - I agree with you. One thing I'm sure we'll see is >>>>>>> fighting mime types of file extensions in a lot of cases. >>>>>> >>>>>> Mime types of file extensions issue exists in all kind of >>>>>> systems, so IMHO this is not a ARC issue. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'm not sure its *not* an ARC issue but I'm not raising it for >>>>> this case. My point is that as we - And this is a generalization - >>>>> add every single piece of FOSS software we can get our hands on to >>>>> [Open]Solaris we're going to see more conflicts then we did in the >>>>> past. The past being known for a lot less duplication and an >>>>> unwillingness to have more then one tool do the same job. >>>>> >>>>> Media players are the easy example. How many have we integrated >>>>> now? How is a user going to select the one they want and make it >>>>> the default? Again, not a question for this case or this project >>>>> team, but something we should figure out in the near term....if >>>>> someone hasn't already. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >> > From Irene.Huang@sun.com Wed Jul 30 23:01:23 2008 Received: from sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com (sunmail2sca.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.234]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6V61NwB020788 for ; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 23:01:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (nwk-avmta-2.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.6]) by sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m6V61MMS007836 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc-ext@sun.com>; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 23:01:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K4U00I07WQAWB00@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@Sun.COM); Wed, 30 Jul 2008 23:01:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sineb-mail-1.sun.com ([192.18.19.6]) by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K4U0093AWQ9UL60@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@Sun.COM); Wed, 30 Jul 2008 23:01:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-apac-05.sun.com (fe-apac-05.sun.com [192.18.19.176] (may be forged)) by sineb-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m6V61KBL002998 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 06:01:20 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-apac.sun.com by mail-apac.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) id <0K4U00B01WNVXO00@mail-apac.sun.com> (original mail from Irene.Huang@Sun.COM) for lsarc-ext@Sun.COM (ORCPT lsarc-ext@Sun.COM); Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:01:20 +0800 (SGT) Received: from [129.158.217.138] by mail-apac.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) with ESMTPSA id <0K4U004L6WQ7PGJD@mail-apac.sun.com>; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:01:20 +0800 (SGT) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:02:20 +0800 From: Irene Huang Subject: Re: Openproj for OpenSolaris [LSARC/2008/464 FastTrack timeout 07/29/2008] In-reply-to: <489033FC.8060007@sun.com> Sender: Irene.Huang@sun.com To: Jim Li Cc: Torrey McMahon , Edward Hunter , Brian Cameron , Shi-Ying Irene Huang , lsarc-ext@sun.com Message-id: <1217484140.14048.16.camel@goalie> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.2 Content-type: text/plain Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200807210921.m6L9LvXN008739@sac.sfbay.sun.com> <48887F92.60002@sun.com> <4888A132.9010408@sun.com> <4888B1DA.5090004@sun.com> <4888B358.1090400@sun.com> <488D7A33.6030202@sun.com> <488DC319.90506@sun.com> <488E2D06.5010201@sun.com> <488E313A.1080006@sun.com> <489033FC.8060007@sun.com> Status: RO Content-Length: 4685 Hi, all The updated proposal is posted at Internally http://sac.eng/Archives/CaseLog/arc/LSARC/2008/464/proposal-v2.txt Diff file http://sac.eng/Archives/CaseLog/arc/LSARC/2008/464/proposal.diff Externally http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/arc/caselog/2008/464 I am reseting the time out to be August 4th. Thanks --Irene On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 17:27 +0800, Jim Li wrote: > I've updated the one page and summarized the question and answers. > > Q1. There are some similar functionality projects. > > I'v listed the known project with similar function in the ARC material. > > Q2. Mime type file extension conflicts. > > There is a potential Mime Type conflicts when integrating projects with > overlap functionality. Although Planner (LSARC/2008/454) and Openproj > are both project management tools, but they have their own file format > and different file extensions, *.planner and *mrprojects for Planner, > *.pod for Openproj. There are no Mime type conflicts for Planner > and Openproj. > I'll keep my eyes on this kind of stuff in future. > > Thanks > Jim > > > > Usually the "default app" is a user preference. As long as there is no > > conflict between the apps I think its ok to have as many as people > > want. I think the important part is making sure the default is easily > > changeable. I hate to use it as an example but Windows has the default > > programs control panel and also has some right menu selections that > > let you "Open file with..." type functionality so you can override the > > default when required. I'm pretty sure that functionality is already > > in gnome but it would be nice to have that confirmed as we add > > different packages with overlapping functionality. > > > > Which one we decide to make default is an other question. I'd vote > > "None of the above" and make the user pick except in the most obvious > > cases. > > > > Edward Hunter wrote: > >> It seems like there is a business issue and an architectural issue > >> combined here. The business issue is which consumer of the mime type > >> (or media format) does Sun pick as the winner. That would be the > >> default out of the box. We could of course choose not to pick one > >> and that is a decision too. :-) > >> > >> The architectural question seems to be "if you pick a winner, does > >> that have a bad effect on the losers". In other words does picking A > >> prevent B and C from functioning. It sounds like in this case the > >> business case is to not pick a winner since we're integrating both > >> bits of software. What is not clear to me is the side effects when > >> the end user chooses between the two (or three) choices. In > >> particular if different users on the same system choose different > >> defaults is that a problem? Sounds like no but I am not sure. > >> -edh > >> > >> > >> Torrey McMahon wrote: > >>> Jim Li wrote: > >>>> Torrey: > >>>>>>> Not to start a flame-fest here but haven't we seen a lot of > >>>>>>> other projects come across lately that integrate functionality > >>>>>>> that matches an other project? Why would this be different? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I don't think it is a problem to have duplicate functionality, > >>>>>> personally. I would just like to hear that the project teams > >>>>>> delivering > >>>>>> related projects are talking together and formulating their plans > >>>>>> with > >>>>>> each other in mind, cooperating with work on any common > >>>>>> dependencies, > >>>>>> etc. At least aware of each other. > >>>>> > >>>>> All of engineering gets the ARC case submittal forms, right? ;) > >>>>> > >>>>> Seriously - I agree with you. One thing I'm sure we'll see is > >>>>> fighting mime types of file extensions in a lot of cases. > >>>> Mime types of file extensions issue exists in all kind of systems, > >>>> so IMHO this is not a ARC issue. > >>> > >>> I'm not sure its *not* an ARC issue but I'm not raising it for this > >>> case. My point is that as we - And this is a generalization - add > >>> every single piece of FOSS software we can get our hands on to > >>> [Open]Solaris we're going to see more conflicts then we did in the > >>> past. The past being known for a lot less duplication and an > >>> unwillingness to have more then one tool do the same job. > >>> > >>> Media players are the easy example. How many have we integrated now? > >>> How is a user going to select the one they want and make it the > >>> default? Again, not a question for this case or this project team, > >>> but something we should figure out in the near term....if someone > >>> hasn't already. > >>> > >>> > >>> > > > From Irene.Huang@sun.com Sun Aug 3 19:49:28 2008 Received: from sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com (sunmail2sca.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.234]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m742nSSa000440 for ; Sun, 3 Aug 2008 19:49:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (brm-avmta-1.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.4.11]) by sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m742nRnQ025734 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc-ext@sun.com>; Sun, 3 Aug 2008 19:49:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K52004092IFZA00@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@Sun.COM); Sun, 03 Aug 2008 20:49:27 -0600 (MDT) Received: from sineb-mail-2.sun.com ([192.18.19.7]) by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K5200GC22ID7J50@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@Sun.COM); Sun, 03 Aug 2008 20:49:26 -0600 (MDT) Received: from fe-apac-05.sun.com (fe-apac-05.sun.com [192.18.19.176] (may be forged)) by sineb-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m742nOoN000698 for ; Mon, 04 Aug 2008 02:49:24 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-apac.sun.com by mail-apac.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) id <0K52003012D58G00@mail-apac.sun.com> (original mail from Irene.Huang@Sun.COM) for lsarc-ext@Sun.COM (ORCPT lsarc-ext@Sun.COM); Mon, 04 Aug 2008 10:49:24 +0800 (SGT) Received: from [129.158.217.138] by mail-apac.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) with ESMTPSA id <0K52004WG2IBPGGJ@mail-apac.sun.com>; Mon, 04 Aug 2008 10:49:24 +0800 (SGT) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 10:50:25 +0800 From: Irene Huang Subject: Re: Openproj for OpenSolaris [LSARC/2008/464 FastTrack timeout 07/29/2008] In-reply-to: <1217484140.14048.16.camel@goalie> Sender: Irene.Huang@sun.com To: Jim Li Cc: Torrey McMahon , Edward Hunter , Brian Cameron , Shi-Ying Irene Huang , lsarc-ext@sun.com Message-id: <1217818225.3807.1.camel@goalie> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.2 Content-type: text/plain Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200807210921.m6L9LvXN008739@sac.sfbay.sun.com> <48887F92.60002@sun.com> <4888A132.9010408@sun.com> <4888B1DA.5090004@sun.com> <4888B358.1090400@sun.com> <488D7A33.6030202@sun.com> <488DC319.90506@sun.com> <488E2D06.5010201@sun.com> <488E313A.1080006@sun.com> <489033FC.8060007@sun.com> <1217484140.14048.16.camel@goalie> Status: RO Content-Length: 5045 Within 24 hours, if there's no objections, I'll close this case as approved. --Irene On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 14:02 +0800, Irene Huang wrote: > Hi, all > > The updated proposal is posted at > Internally > http://sac.eng/Archives/CaseLog/arc/LSARC/2008/464/proposal-v2.txt > Diff file > http://sac.eng/Archives/CaseLog/arc/LSARC/2008/464/proposal.diff > > Externally > http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/arc/caselog/2008/464 > > I am reseting the time out to be August 4th. > > Thanks > --Irene > On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 17:27 +0800, Jim Li wrote: > > I've updated the one page and summarized the question and answers. > > > > Q1. There are some similar functionality projects. > > > > I'v listed the known project with similar function in the ARC material. > > > > Q2. Mime type file extension conflicts. > > > > There is a potential Mime Type conflicts when integrating projects with > > overlap functionality. Although Planner (LSARC/2008/454) and Openproj > > are both project management tools, but they have their own file format > > and different file extensions, *.planner and *mrprojects for Planner, > > *.pod for Openproj. There are no Mime type conflicts for Planner > > and Openproj. > > I'll keep my eyes on this kind of stuff in future. > > > > Thanks > > Jim > > > > > > > Usually the "default app" is a user preference. As long as there is no > > > conflict between the apps I think its ok to have as many as people > > > want. I think the important part is making sure the default is easily > > > changeable. I hate to use it as an example but Windows has the default > > > programs control panel and also has some right menu selections that > > > let you "Open file with..." type functionality so you can override the > > > default when required. I'm pretty sure that functionality is already > > > in gnome but it would be nice to have that confirmed as we add > > > different packages with overlapping functionality. > > > > > > Which one we decide to make default is an other question. I'd vote > > > "None of the above" and make the user pick except in the most obvious > > > cases. > > > > > > Edward Hunter wrote: > > >> It seems like there is a business issue and an architectural issue > > >> combined here. The business issue is which consumer of the mime type > > >> (or media format) does Sun pick as the winner. That would be the > > >> default out of the box. We could of course choose not to pick one > > >> and that is a decision too. :-) > > >> > > >> The architectural question seems to be "if you pick a winner, does > > >> that have a bad effect on the losers". In other words does picking A > > >> prevent B and C from functioning. It sounds like in this case the > > >> business case is to not pick a winner since we're integrating both > > >> bits of software. What is not clear to me is the side effects when > > >> the end user chooses between the two (or three) choices. In > > >> particular if different users on the same system choose different > > >> defaults is that a problem? Sounds like no but I am not sure. > > >> -edh > > >> > > >> > > >> Torrey McMahon wrote: > > >>> Jim Li wrote: > > >>>> Torrey: > > >>>>>>> Not to start a flame-fest here but haven't we seen a lot of > > >>>>>>> other projects come across lately that integrate functionality > > >>>>>>> that matches an other project? Why would this be different? > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> I don't think it is a problem to have duplicate functionality, > > >>>>>> personally. I would just like to hear that the project teams > > >>>>>> delivering > > >>>>>> related projects are talking together and formulating their plans > > >>>>>> with > > >>>>>> each other in mind, cooperating with work on any common > > >>>>>> dependencies, > > >>>>>> etc. At least aware of each other. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> All of engineering gets the ARC case submittal forms, right? ;) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Seriously - I agree with you. One thing I'm sure we'll see is > > >>>>> fighting mime types of file extensions in a lot of cases. > > >>>> Mime types of file extensions issue exists in all kind of systems, > > >>>> so IMHO this is not a ARC issue. > > >>> > > >>> I'm not sure its *not* an ARC issue but I'm not raising it for this > > >>> case. My point is that as we - And this is a generalization - add > > >>> every single piece of FOSS software we can get our hands on to > > >>> [Open]Solaris we're going to see more conflicts then we did in the > > >>> past. The past being known for a lot less duplication and an > > >>> unwillingness to have more then one tool do the same job. > > >>> > > >>> Media players are the easy example. How many have we integrated now? > > >>> How is a user going to select the one they want and make it the > > >>> default? Again, not a question for this case or this project team, > > >>> but something we should figure out in the near term....if someone > > >>> hasn't already. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > > From Irene.Huang@sun.com Mon Aug 4 23:20:34 2008 Received: from sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (sunmail4.Singapore.Sun.COM [129.158.71.19]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m756KXVc016927 for ; Mon, 4 Aug 2008 23:20:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (nwk-avmta-2.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.6]) by sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (8.13.4+Sun/8.13.3/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m756KO3v019485 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:lsarc-ext@sun.com>; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 14:20:32 +0800 (SGT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K5400I016Y6CH00@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@Sun.COM); Mon, 04 Aug 2008 23:20:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sineb-mail-1.sun.com ([192.18.19.6]) by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K5400KPZ6Y45RC0@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for lsarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT lsarc-ext@Sun.COM); Mon, 04 Aug 2008 23:20:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-apac-06.sun.com (fe-apac-06.sun.com [192.18.19.177] (may be forged)) by sineb-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m756KSXK012342 for ; Tue, 05 Aug 2008 06:20:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-apac.sun.com by mail-apac.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) id <0K5400M016X8HN00@mail-apac.sun.com> (original mail from Irene.Huang@Sun.COM) for lsarc-ext@Sun.COM (ORCPT lsarc-ext@Sun.COM); Tue, 05 Aug 2008 14:20:28 +0800 (SGT) Received: from [129.158.217.138] by mail-apac.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) with ESMTPSA id <0K540098M6Y28AP4@mail-apac.sun.com>; Tue, 05 Aug 2008 14:20:28 +0800 (SGT) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 14:21:29 +0800 From: Irene Huang Subject: Re: Openproj for OpenSolaris [LSARC/2008/464 FastTrack timeout 07/29/2008] In-reply-to: <1217818225.3807.1.camel@goalie> Sender: Irene.Huang@sun.com To: Jim Li Cc: Torrey McMahon , Edward Hunter , Brian Cameron , Shi-Ying Irene Huang , lsarc-ext@sun.com Message-id: <1217917289.18206.8.camel@goalie> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.2 Content-type: text/plain Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200807210921.m6L9LvXN008739@sac.sfbay.sun.com> <48887F92.60002@sun.com> <4888A132.9010408@sun.com> <4888B1DA.5090004@sun.com> <4888B358.1090400@sun.com> <488D7A33.6030202@sun.com> <488DC319.90506@sun.com> <488E2D06.5010201@sun.com> <488E313A.1080006@sun.com> <489033FC.8060007@sun.com> <1217484140.14048.16.camel@goalie> <1217818225.3807.1.camel@goalie> Status: RO Content-Length: 5361 Closed as approved. --Irene On Mon, 2008-08-04 at 10:50 +0800, Irene Huang wrote: > Within 24 hours, if there's no objections, I'll close this case as > approved. > > --Irene > On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 14:02 +0800, Irene Huang wrote: > > Hi, all > > > > The updated proposal is posted at > > Internally > > http://sac.eng/Archives/CaseLog/arc/LSARC/2008/464/proposal-v2.txt > > Diff file > > http://sac.eng/Archives/CaseLog/arc/LSARC/2008/464/proposal.diff > > > > Externally > > http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/arc/caselog/2008/464 > > > > I am reseting the time out to be August 4th. > > > > Thanks > > --Irene > > On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 17:27 +0800, Jim Li wrote: > > > I've updated the one page and summarized the question and answers. > > > > > > Q1. There are some similar functionality projects. > > > > > > I'v listed the known project with similar function in the ARC material. > > > > > > Q2. Mime type file extension conflicts. > > > > > > There is a potential Mime Type conflicts when integrating projects with > > > overlap functionality. Although Planner (LSARC/2008/454) and Openproj > > > are both project management tools, but they have their own file format > > > and different file extensions, *.planner and *mrprojects for Planner, > > > *.pod for Openproj. There are no Mime type conflicts for Planner > > > and Openproj. > > > I'll keep my eyes on this kind of stuff in future. > > > > > > Thanks > > > Jim > > > > > > > > > > Usually the "default app" is a user preference. As long as there is no > > > > conflict between the apps I think its ok to have as many as people > > > > want. I think the important part is making sure the default is easily > > > > changeable. I hate to use it as an example but Windows has the default > > > > programs control panel and also has some right menu selections that > > > > let you "Open file with..." type functionality so you can override the > > > > default when required. I'm pretty sure that functionality is already > > > > in gnome but it would be nice to have that confirmed as we add > > > > different packages with overlapping functionality. > > > > > > > > Which one we decide to make default is an other question. I'd vote > > > > "None of the above" and make the user pick except in the most obvious > > > > cases. > > > > > > > > Edward Hunter wrote: > > > >> It seems like there is a business issue and an architectural issue > > > >> combined here. The business issue is which consumer of the mime type > > > >> (or media format) does Sun pick as the winner. That would be the > > > >> default out of the box. We could of course choose not to pick one > > > >> and that is a decision too. :-) > > > >> > > > >> The architectural question seems to be "if you pick a winner, does > > > >> that have a bad effect on the losers". In other words does picking A > > > >> prevent B and C from functioning. It sounds like in this case the > > > >> business case is to not pick a winner since we're integrating both > > > >> bits of software. What is not clear to me is the side effects when > > > >> the end user chooses between the two (or three) choices. In > > > >> particular if different users on the same system choose different > > > >> defaults is that a problem? Sounds like no but I am not sure. > > > >> -edh > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Torrey McMahon wrote: > > > >>> Jim Li wrote: > > > >>>> Torrey: > > > >>>>>>> Not to start a flame-fest here but haven't we seen a lot of > > > >>>>>>> other projects come across lately that integrate functionality > > > >>>>>>> that matches an other project? Why would this be different? > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> I don't think it is a problem to have duplicate functionality, > > > >>>>>> personally. I would just like to hear that the project teams > > > >>>>>> delivering > > > >>>>>> related projects are talking together and formulating their plans > > > >>>>>> with > > > >>>>>> each other in mind, cooperating with work on any common > > > >>>>>> dependencies, > > > >>>>>> etc. At least aware of each other. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> All of engineering gets the ARC case submittal forms, right? ;) > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Seriously - I agree with you. One thing I'm sure we'll see is > > > >>>>> fighting mime types of file extensions in a lot of cases. > > > >>>> Mime types of file extensions issue exists in all kind of systems, > > > >>>> so IMHO this is not a ARC issue. > > > >>> > > > >>> I'm not sure its *not* an ARC issue but I'm not raising it for this > > > >>> case. My point is that as we - And this is a generalization - add > > > >>> every single piece of FOSS software we can get our hands on to > > > >>> [Open]Solaris we're going to see more conflicts then we did in the > > > >>> past. The past being known for a lot less duplication and an > > > >>> unwillingness to have more then one tool do the same job. > > > >>> > > > >>> Media players are the easy example. How many have we integrated now? > > > >>> How is a user going to select the one they want and make it the > > > >>> default? Again, not a question for this case or this project team, > > > >>> but something we should figure out in the near term....if someone > > > >>> hasn't already. > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >