Garrett D'Amore writes: > I think it doesn't qualify for automatic approval. I suspect the > special numbering will be the cause of some consternation. I'm not sure > what number we're up to on our patching, but when will we run into the > problem where our patch numbers don't work?
I don't see the problem you do. Who cares about the numbering system used for patch IDs, and how is any numbering choice for a patch an architectural issue to begin with? I see it as only goodness -- it makes it clear (to anyone who cares) that these are very special "patches" and don't really exist anywhere other than inside the fiction of updates. > If the idea of using a special patch prefix letter (outside of the > numbering space) is not acceptable for some reason, then I'm willing to > hold my nose and give this a +1. I'd still like confirmation from the > project team as to whether the idea was considered, and if it was > rejected, I'd like to know why. Likely because it requires zero change in the tools. -- 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
