Shawn Walker writes: > However, one could say that unless they are choosing to integrate into > something, they don't have to follow integration rules. > > This would definitely be something I would expect to be addressed in > Mr. Plocher's ARC proposal.
I agree. > > > Maybe the better question to ask is whether #3 is ever required before > > > #4... > > > > Always, at least for ON. > > Sorry, I worded that rather poorly. > > What I meant was, to design, or develop, or do certain things (other > than integration) is ARC ever required? The issue here might be in part an incomplete transition. Historically, an architectural review requirement was triggered by creating an "engineering product," and the checkpoint was the integration into some "consolidation" for inclusion in a release of that product. It's the keepers of the consolidation (the C-teams) who are responsible for making sure this happens, not the ARC. I don't know exactly how that ought to map into OpenSolaris or the projects that are running, but if we are in (or are moving towards) a world in which releases are defined by entities that either don't care about technical reviews or don't understand what happens when open reviews aren't part of the process, then it sounds like we either need a new process, or we're just headed for a repeat of history. (This time as tragedy, probably.) In any event, it's not clear what you're asking about. Are you talking about getting into ON or one of the other consolidations? Or are you talking about what community groups and projects may do? If it's the former, then ARC review is required prior to integration. If it's the latter, then I don't think there's any special process in place, but I think John's proposal is intended as a way to get there. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> 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
