Joseph Kowalski writes: > April Chin wrote: > > Below is the updated 1-pager for the case. > > The only significant change is the rewording of the paragraph on interface > > stability levels, immediately before the listing of Interface, Description, > > and Stability. > > > Since we've been discussing it, a statement as to which meta-cluster > this package > is to be included in should be part of the spec. Roland, myself and I > think you (April) > believe it should be SUNWdev
Is that SUNWCprog? We're talking about metaclusters and not packages. > while Jim (and perhaps others) have a > different view. > > Anyway, we should have a stake in the sand here, so we know what were > approving. Except for the definitions of metaclusters, I don't know of much precedent in ARC review of individual packaging choices. I'm not saying it's the wrong thing to do, it's just new by me. It feels like approving a particular release vehicle content. I'm more than willing to leave the metacluster assignments (if any) out of the case, and work with the team (and the gate staff) offline to make sure the right thing happens. Is that acceptable? -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
