James Carlson wrote: > Alan Perry wrote: >> Garrett D'Amore wrote: >>> This is not the only criteria for self-review. Self-review cases must >>> also be so obvious and self explanatory that no further review is >>> desired or required. They should usually should not be introducing >>> new architecture. >>> >>> I believe this case exceed this threshold, and I would like to make >>> sure it is properly reviewed. Please convert this to a fast track with >>> a one week timer. >> This case does not introduce new architecture. It is making changes to >> an architecture introduced in PSARC/2004/779. >> >> As far as the obvious criteria, obvious to whom? > > Obvious to the reviewers -- in this case, that would be those on > psarc-ext, such as Garrett. > > I think his response was completely appropriate. It wasn't in any way a > denial of anything the project team has done; it was simply a request to > have a couple of days to look the materials over before declaring the > ARC review of the change to be complete. > > Reviews outside of the ARC are a great thing, and it's good to know that > the project team has sought such reviews, and that there are willing > people with domain expertise available to provide them. They're never a > substitute for open ARC review, though.
Does this mean that any case that requires specific knowledge of a particular technology is now not eligible for self-review because PSARC reviewers who does not work on that technology are unlikely to find the case obvious? Excuse me while I express some frustration here. In the past, I have sponsored cases with more substantial changes and have been asked why I was wasting people's time by submitting a fast-track and not a self-review. alan
