Artem Kachitchkine writes: > > Certainly the transition in going from DDI compliant to > > non-DDI-compliant is not one that I would want to just sweep under the > > rug. Better to announce that transition up front, IMO. (And if going > > non-DDI compliant is required to fix a bug, my first question would be > > "why?") > > I'm not disagreeing this that. I'm just wondering why ARC should be the > one asking that question and not C-team/CRT.
I think you might be confusing policy with enforcement. The requirement itself (if we were to approve one) is a system architectural issue. We would be saying that, despite the clear indications to the contrary in the interface taxonomy and existing ARC practice, projects of a certain type may not actually use Consolidation Private interfaces from their own consolidation without additional review. That's the ARC issue. _Enforcement_ of these requirements is strictly in the hands of the applicable C-teams. Just as with our other rules, it's up to the C-team to make sure that the project team has properly complied with all applicable review requirements, architectural restrictions, and the like. Yes, if I were on the C-team, I'd be advocating a new checklist item and probably some new local policies to make sure that we catch any mistakes that might be made. Those things aren't architectural, though. Only the policy (disallowing unreviewed use of private interfaces, and thus mandating architectural review) itself is. -- 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
