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
