Dermot McCluskey writes: > James Carlson wrote: > >> Micro release binding is requested. > > > > What did you mean? If you meant to get it into S10, then "Micro" > > binding generally won't help as there are no Micro releases defined > > (yet) for S10. You need patch binding for that. > > Based on the "Obsolescence allowed?" column of the table > describing the Obsolete modifier at > http://sac.eng/cgi-bin/bp.cgi?NAME=interface_taxonomy.bp it > appears that Uncommitted (Obsolete) is not allowed with Patch > binding, so I picked the next least restrictive release type.
OK; it sounds like just a misunderstanding. You're not obsoleting an existing interface. You're adding a new interface that's _born_ as obsolete. Thus, there's no obsolescence notification required, and this chart doesn't help. > I would also be OK with Minor release binding, as I don't > currently have plans to port to S10, but I thought selecting > the less restrictive Micro would be more appropriate? You may, even though there are no Micro releases planned. I'm just trying to figure out where you're intending to integrate this. If it's going into an S10 update, then it needs to have patch/micro binding. It looks to me like it ought to be appropriate for such a binding. -- 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
