Gary Winiger writes: > [Not architectural, but likely PAC advice] > Doesn't being Committed and having no upstream "owner" in effect > mean that the submitters management chain is signed up to maintain > and fix bugs until EOF?
The questions just change in nature -- instead of being "we fix bugs that look like X, they fix things that look like Y, and we share bug database references," it becomes "we fix all bugs, because the Y set is nil." I don't think X is nil in all cases, even with an upstream owner. > Is the submitters management chain aware > and has accepted this? Perhaps as mentioned Obsolete or Volatile > is more appropriate for interfaces that are not "owned". Mixing the support story (particularly one associated with just _one_ distribution and not _all_ distributions) with the interface stability level sounds like a mistake to me. In fact, if it's not supported, it's probably more stable, just because there's nobody working on it. Some of the most stable stuff we've got gathers dust over in /usr/dist (on the SWAN) or /usr/ucb. ;-} -- 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
