closed approved.
--Irene
On Mon, 2008-07-28 at 19:18 +0800, Irene Huang wrote:
> Hi, all
>
> I've changed the interface definition in
> http://sac.eng/Archives/CaseLog/arc/LSARC/2008/446/proposal-v2.txt
>
> There's no more unresolved issues for this case, I'd like to close it in
> 24 hours if there's no more questions.
>
> --Irene
> On Mon, 2008-07-28 at 18:26 +0800, Jim Li wrote:
> > Brian:
> > >>>>> If these interfaces are intended for Solaris users to make use of,
> > >>>>> then should the interfaces be Uncommitted rather than Volatile? It
> > >>>>> doesn't seem much good to provide interfaces for providing dialogs
> > >>>>> via shell scripts if the interfaces might change or break.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> As matter of fact, dialog is just a executable utility which is for
> > >>>> OpenSolaris. That's the reason why I defined it as Volatile.
> > >>>
> > >>> This doesn't seem like a good argument to me. I still don't see
> > >>> the value in adding interfaces that users are expected to use, that
> > >>> we also tell them we may change in an ad-hoc fashion.
> > >>>
> > >> Could it be ok if I change it to Uncommited? I'll check if those
> > >> interface change a lot recently in community.
> > >
> > > If the interfaces are being maintained in a stable fashion upstream,
> > > then Uncommitted would make more sense, I think. I'd check with the
> > > external community and maintainer.
> > >
> > From result of checking source code and feedback from community
> > maintainer, I think these interface should be Uncommited.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Jim
> >
> >
>
