James Carlson wrote: > 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. > Yea. > >> 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? > Its not only acceptable, but its what we usually do. I just thought it might be good to include it, because we had discussed it. However, omitting it saves us the task of closing on the discussion on an already closed and approved case. I'm all for that!
- jek3
