Brian, The discussion started off with how are you going to notify the customer that the interface was extremely volatile (my wording) because it is not even supported. As I said, making it Project Private or providing the customer with reasonable documentation and possibly a warning dialog or compile time switch is sufficient notification also.
Thanks, John Brian Cameron wrote: > > Alan: > >>>> You are correct that the interface taxonomy are not related to the >>>> support model. However, it seems that many ARC cases don't include the >>>> support model. There's no area for us to specify the support model of a >>>> module in the ARC one-pager template. >>> ARC has a sort of black & white worldview. If it's Volatile or higher >>> then it is supported. If it is Private, then it is not supported. >> >> Actually, I'd say it's even clearer than that - if it's shipped in a >> product, >> it's supported, and what level of support it receives is not the ARC's >> concern, >> but between the C-Team/P-Team/etc. and the support organization. >> >> The support level may be "will only issue a patch if it's a security >> hole", >> "will only issue a patch if a customer with a support contract >> escalates", >> "will include any fixes provided by the community in the next >> release", or >> some other level of support - that's all stuff to put in your C-Team >> Checklist, not your ARC case. > > If this is the case, then remind me what's the problem with us shipping > libgweather as Volatile and supporting it with whatever arrangements > we want to make with the support organization? I am now confused about > why this is an ARC concern? > > If we want to talk about the fact that libgweather should be Private > because it is "extremely volatile", then can we do this without digging > into all the other interfaces in GNOME which have the exact same issue? > Who decides when something is "too Volatile" and therefore needs to be > Private? > > Brian
