Glenn Skinner wrote: > Glenn Skinner wrote: > > Glenn Skinner wrote: [snip > > If the project team wishes to retain the existing stability > > classification, that's their prerogative; they'll have chosen to > > assume the risk of violating the stability classification's guarantees > > (and presumably will have a strategy for mitigating the risk). > > Erm... what does that mean ? > > It means that you can choose to leave ksh's stability classification > (for ARC purposes) unchanged, and (I think) have done so. To go along > with that choice, you've decided that extensive testing is sufficient > to uphold the guarantees that are implicit in that choice of stability > level. (That's the mitigation strategy I was talking about.) > > That's enough to address my concern.
Ok... :-) ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 (;O/ \/ \O;)
