Joseph Kowalski wrote:
>
>> 2) Relationship of "t-, t, t+" versioning scheme and C-Team
>> integration rules.
>> ...
>> Resolution:
>> Not a problem.
> I can't seem to get a clear answer about my concern (and yes, it
> is a C-team issue). Let me try a very simple question:
>
> Can interfaces which appear in "t-" (for the first time, semantics
> or syntax), be incompatibly changed in "t"?
>
> [ ] yes
> [ ] no
>
> If Roland can check the "no" box, then I agree. (If not, this case
> can probably still be approved, but with a note to the C-team.)
I've seen mail from David Korn (not CC'd to PSARC, unfortunately) which
I think cleared this up unambiguously. Check the "no" box, and lets
move forward. :-)
>>
>> 3) Creation of /usr/lib/shell as Project Private
> Thinking...
Yeah, you me, and a few other people too. :-) I still wish this were
separate, at least that way we could have those discussions and let the
rest of the unrelated ksh93 updates (which seem like they had their
issues resolved) move forward.
-- Garrett
