Alan Perry wrote:
> 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.
It already is correct:
> A potential change is eligible for self-review if it is being made to
> a pre-existing item that
>
> * has had an earlier case approved by an ARC,
> * does not introduce new interfaces visible outside their own
> project, and
> * do not alter any interfaces visible outside their own project
>
Consolidation Private automatically breaks the last two bullet points.
-- Garrett
>
> alan
