I've removed the case number to avoid this meta discussion from being
recorded in the case log.
Alan Perry wrote:
> John Plocher wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Alan Perry<Alan.Perry at sun.com> wrote:
>>> However, I am concerned about inconsistent application of the
>>> documented
>>> process.
>>
>> In the past, my decision tree looked like this:
>>
>> Proposed stability level for new interfaces:
>>
>> {Project Private, Not an Interface} ) => Self Review
>> {Consolidation Private} => Fast Track
>> {Sun Private} => Deny with extreme prejudice :-)
>>
>> else
>>
>> => Fasttrack or full case, as circumstances require, based on
>> whether incompatible changes are being made to interfaces
>> that have existing expectations of longevity...
>
> That sounds reasonable.
>
> However, as I have noted, in the past I have sponsored cases with more
> significant changes where PSARC members said "why is this a fast-track
> and not a self-review".
>
> I like your decision tree, but it isn't what everyone does and it
> doesn't completely map to the documented process.
I think you are both assuming that there is a concrete line, or that the
promotion of this case to a fast track was intended as a punishment.
Both positions are incorrect. Human readers (members) review the cases
and if they decide more review is warranted, they can request so.
That's what was done here. Such a request doesn't imply anything was
wrong with the case. The only way this would be a punishment is if the
project team had not left themselves enough time to have the case
reviewed before submitting the case. (That would indeed be a poor
choice by any project team.)
That said, the use of CP suggests that this is *not* just for use by the
"SATA" team, but potentially by other folks integrated into ON, and
hence some level of public review is appropriate.
But it goes beyond that... since this adds a new piece to the storage
story, its fair for folks who may have significant experience with
storage -- such as folks in the filesystems groups -- to ask pertinent
questions, etc. There may be things that people outside of the group
are aware of that the project team is not. (And sometimes things like
this are issues that catch project teams by surprise... e.g. issues with
hotplug interaction or with security concerns that project teams don't
think of simply because they are focused on their domain expertise.
This is part of why we request broader review of projects at PSARC.)
I'll actually have some questions for the project team but I'll post
them separately.
-- Garrett
