We'll work work the required people and arrange to come to a meeting.
pete
On 07/27/10 00:34, Gary Winiger wrote:
On 07/26/10 04:49 PM, Sebastien Roy wrote:
I think at this point, we've identified that this is at least not
uncontroversial, and thus fails the fast-track test. As a result, I'm
derailing this case.
Seb got there first. I was away for an extended time today.
My reasons to derail include:
1) There is no compelling architectural argument why the
proposed incompatible change change should be made with
a Minor release binding.
2) I believe that it is incumbent on the Moderenization
project to come forward with an architectural statement
to set a precedent as to the bounds of incompatible change
allowed for this Minor release.
Coming from memory, the statements I recall from the
Moderenization project are something like: don't break
compatibility if you don't have to. If you do have to
break compatibility, there needs to be an appreciable
gain in value to the Solaris Architecture.
The question is how to resolve the case: Provide a compelling
architcetural argument that shows an appreciable gain in
value to the Solaris Architecture.
IMO, not only this project team, but also the Moderenization
project team is necessary to attend the meeting.
Gary..
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-arc mailing list
opensolaris-arc@opensolaris.org
