James C. McPherson writes: > James Carlson wrote: > > It's not for an S10 Update. It just has no architectural impact of > > its own that requires a Minor release binding. Anywhere IPS could go, > > it would go. > > True, and I consider the "patch/micro" request to be incorrect > in this context also.
Why would that be? "Patch/micro" implicitly authorizes you to deliver via Minor and Major releases, and it's valid even if there are no Patches or Micro release vehicles currently defined or in progress. In addition, when a project asserts a "patch/micro" release binding on Solaris, the project team is not necessarily saying that they *will* backport to something in the S10 patch train or any other one. It says only that the project would be acceptable for such a backport *if* there were a reason or cause to do that. The reasons for a backport (if any) are outside of the ARC's domain -- that's a resources and content issue, not architectural. The ARC doesn't normally review projects against a specific named release or schedule. Instead, it reviews against a *type* of release. In this case, the project team is asserting that the change they're making (adding this new utility) would be an acceptable change in any kind of release -- including a Patch or a Micro release. I agree with them; their project is not making the sorts of changes that would require Minor (or higher) release binding. (For what it's worth, I advised the project team privately to use "patch/micro" to avoid almost exactly this conversation, which almost inevitably comes from someone asserting "micro" binding when a lesser binding will do. Mission failed, I suppose.) -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
