This seems to be going astray.
James Carlson wrote: > Ed Gould writes: > >> Yes. I'm fine with this Volatile interface either disappearing >> completely or becoming Private with no incompatible changes ever. Note >> especially the word "ever." >> > > I think that pretty much puts the last nail in the coffin for Volatile > as a generally usable classification. The very definition of Volatile > is that it allows for incompatible change at any time -- including in > Micro releases and patches. > > That's much more often than "no incompatible change ever." > > Is it your intention that we should just disallow all "experimental" > projects? That's effectively what this project is attempting to do, > and the implication of disallowing the use of Volatile for the fluid > bits. I'm somewhat in accord with that prohibition, but I think we > have a clash with senior management here. > Its a strange concept, but I think what Ed was saying is that if this were to go Private, its interfaces would be frozen at that point in time. This makes a bit of sense, because since its now Private, just how would we notify anybody of a change? We care, because we once documented it. >> If the interface is going to vanish in a future release, I would want >> the case supporting that release to include the transition plan. >> > > A transition plan for Volatile? When do we require that? > Yea, this seemed wrong, if it means "transition period". Telling people how to transition is always appropriate. ... If I were John, I'd make sure that this Volatile interface is simply removed when he is done with it, which perhaps means nothing more than renaming the now Private file. From his earlier post, this seems to be in-line with his thoughts, but I am reading between the lines. > Also note that basically none of this matters a whit. You could call > it Committed if you like. Because our taxonomy is based on releases, > and this project isn't targeting an Update, the interface is not > frozen until Nevada actually ships as a release. We apparently have > no plans to do that at all at any point in the future. So, by the > time NWAM phase 1, 2, and 3 come around, and Nevada still hasn't > shipped, we'll still be able to make incompatible changes, even in > Committed interfaces. > Yea, we should do something about this, like surviving 5 Express Releases counts as a release for the taxonomy. 8^) - jek3 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-arc/attachments/20070317/212b14bd/attachment.html>
