Joseph Kowalski writes: > James Carlson wrote: > > 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.
I see. In that case, though, we might consider just breaking them intentionally. (We documented it, but we documented it as something that you shouldn't use for anything you care about.) > 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. I agree with this. > > 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^) That'd work for me. -- 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
