On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 04:01:40PM -0500, James Carlson wrote:
> 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.
A prefix, such as we already get with IDRxxxxxx-xx, would make it equally
clear, if not clearer.
Ceri
--
That must be wonderful! I don't understand it at all.
-- Moliere
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-arc/attachments/20090109/ef0218ee/attachment.bin>
