Just to be clear, I do not have a problem with more review. However, I am concerned about inconsistent application of the documented process.
Garrett D'Amore wrote: >> 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. > > This requires human judgment. If you aren't sure, it would never hurt > to ask a member for an opinion about the right level of review. Based on my previous experience with cases submitted before, I was sure. Otherwise I would have submitted a fast-track. > Established architecture would be cases where you add no new interfaces, > or only project private interfaces, and the plumbing is "obvious". > Adding new interfaces for device drivers to call and use definitely > exceeds that the threshold and IMO constitutes "new architecture", and > even if it seems obvious to the project team it needs to be given the > opportunity for people outside the project team (who may or may not be > ARC members) to provide feedback. These interfaces are consolidation private interfaces that are used only by the sata development team. According to the Interface Taxonomy, ARC review of the specs for consolidation private work is "Not necessary". This document also says "If a Consolidation Private interface is reviewed by the ARC, ask that ARC if they want to review later changes to that interface." Based on previously submitted cases, the answer seemed to be 'no' for minor changes to the interface. alan
