JohnP I totally agree with you. Give the customers about the support level of a specific component should be done via the documentation, not through ARC.
JohnF, how do you think that we agree that in the future, if we are concerned about the support level, we should directly go to modify the documentation (release notes, manpages etc)? Thanks --Irene On Tue, 2008-03-25 at 21:38 -0700, John Plocher wrote: > Irene Huang wrote: > > 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. > > What does the warranty support level have to do with the software > architecture of the component? Nothing at all. > > I can understand the inverse relationship - a poor software architecture > usually means greater support costs as your customers find that the > component does not meet their expectations. > > In the end, the ARC reviewers are not the consumers of the warranty info. > And, except for a few customers who hang out here (Hi BenR...), I seriously > doubt any of them would even think of google()ing > site:www.opensolaris.org/os/community/arc/caselog/ > for service and support info. > > Your release notes, man pages and desktop about boxes are the propoer > place for this type of info - places where one might expect the customer > to actually look. > > -John (the other one) > >
