My understanding from the above discussion is 1. Product Support level is not mapped to interface stability, neither is it a "concern" of ARC. 2. There's official definition of support models, OR there might be such definition [1], however, people have their own interpretation.
Please correct me if I am wrong. --Irene [1] I know that there are three support levels, which are common referred to: supported, Managed supported, not supported On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 14:11 -0700, John Plocher wrote: > Brian Cameron wrote: > > John: > > > >> 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. > > > > Would it make more sense to simply place the .pc file into a private > > > Maybe the right answer is to align the support matrix with the upstream > supplier; as Shawn said, customers notice when the GNOME from GNOME is > different from the GNOME from Sun. > > There should be a support level that says "it is what it is, because it > is exactly what we get from the community. We won't fork and make our > own changes here, but we will ship newer versions as they are developed > by the community". > > Of course, to be able to easily ship the new stuff, the interfaces need > to be marked as Volatile so that existing customers don't complain that > we changed something out from under them, but Volatile is not sufficient > to describe the above support policy... > > -John > >
