Irene, This gets back to my original suggestion which is notify the customer so how. That method can be a warning dialog, release notes and man pages. If you declare something Project Private my assumption is that you will not ship header files and probably place it in some private directory.
Thanks, John Irene Huang wrote: > JohnP > I totally agree with you. Give the customers about the support level of > a specific component should be done via the documentation, not through > ARC. > > JohnF, > how do you think that we agree that in the future, if we are concerned > about the support level, we should directly go to modify the > documentation (release notes, manpages etc)? > > Thanks > > --Irene > On Tue, 2008-03-25 at 21:38 -0700, John Plocher wrote: >> Irene Huang wrote: >>> You are correct that the interface taxonomy are not related to the >>> support model. However, it seems that many ARC cases don't include the >>> support model. There's no area for us to specify the support model of a >>> module in the ARC one-pager template. >> What does the warranty support level have to do with the software >> architecture of the component? Nothing at all. >> >> I can understand the inverse relationship - a poor software architecture >> usually means greater support costs as your customers find that the >> component does not meet their expectations. >> >> In the end, the ARC reviewers are not the consumers of the warranty info. >> And, except for a few customers who hang out here (Hi BenR...), I seriously >> doubt any of them would even think of google()ing >> site:www.opensolaris.org/os/community/arc/caselog/ >> for service and support info. >> >> Your release notes, man pages and desktop about boxes are the propoer >> place for this type of info - places where one might expect the customer >> to actually look. >> >> -John (the other one) >> >> >
