I. Szczesniak wrote:
Of course if the answer is "removal has been approved, and it's just a
code review question" then that's a narrower issue in which case someone
else needs to comment on the code review itself.
Removal *has* been approved,
which can quickly be revoked if I appeal the case. I DO have such a
laptop and I do not like the ad hoc removal of SPARCLE support in such
a short time frame.
Technically you can't appeal the case because you aren't an OpenSolaris
ARC member, you need to find a community member (and they aren't just
Sun employees) who is and get them to sponsor the appeal for you.
Appeals are very rare and every appeal I've been involved with during my
time as an ARC member and ARC chair have been based on "pressing
business need" and have never been for a removal of a feature. We have
also never yet had an appeal initiated by a non Sun person. Usually it
is the project team that initiated the case that is asking for the
appeal to approve a case that is otherwise rejected (or was approved
with a required change they can't implement in time). I have never
seen a case where a non project team member asked for an appeal on an
approved case.
So this will be challenging to run the appeal if you wish to pursue it
but it will be possible. Note that the ARC chairs can choose not to
even hear the appeal if they don't believe that sufficient data and
justification can be provided.
If you do feel that strongly please come prepared to the appeal (when it
is scheduled) with both the technical and business reasons why you
believe that the ARC made a mistake in approving this case. This will
need to address why the current state of affairs was technically useful
(despite the fact that Garrett who put the SPARCLE support in there in
the first place in his own time says it is not and has already explained
why).
--
Darren J Moffat
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-code mailing list
opensolaris-code@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
