John Plocher wrote: > On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 11:02 AM, Alan Perry<Alan.Perry at sun.com> wrote: >> sponsored cases with more >> significant changes where PSARC members said "why is this a fast-track and >> not a self-review". > > The key point isn't "significant changes", but rather "what is the > existing stability level of the things being changed?" - we do ARC > stuff so we can manage the impact and repercussions of the stuff we > change. > > Adding things is easy, as is changing things in compatible ways. Even > incompatible changes are easy, as long as they are to things that have > low longevity/stability expectations. > As you move up the stability levels with incompatible changes, the > need for review naturally increases, because the side effects of such > changes impacts more and more projects/teams. > > So maybe the best litmus test is one that captures the difficulty of > managing the change once it gets out into the world: "who might be > negatively impacted by my change?" - with "none but me" equating to > self review, "family and friends, but we can easily deal with it" to > "fast track" and "people I don't know well" to "full review".
If this is the case, could the materials that describe the process be updated to reflect this? I am specifically referring to the Self-Review Duties and Self Review Process pages on the sac.eng website as well as the Interface Taxonomy, which says that ARC review is not necessary for Consolidation Private interfaces. alan
