Joseph Kowalski wrote:
> John Plocher wrote:
>> You are right in one aspect - as a /suggestion/, this is NOT intended
>> to be a predicate for approval of this case. In formal ARC-eese, I would
>> like to see:
>>
>> TCR - articulate this design pattern ("just like Perl...")
>> into a formal BestPractice that can be published on the
>> ARC Community pages (I will happily help with the logistics
>> of making this part happen), and
> Can't TCR that. A TCR must be written to be explicit such that no further
> review is required. I think I'd like to review the "design pattern".
> Its got to
> be part of the materials before this can be approved (or another case, upon
> which this is dependent).
>
> - jek3
>
We seem to have several precedents - Perl, Java, XPGn, versioned DSOs,
Multi-Installation and Management of Layered Products for Java ES, etc
that should be brought into some sort of alignment here.
I'm reluctantly OK with making this a NEED SPEC; I was hoping to decouple
it from the approval cycle for the project, though. That is, I'd like to
say something like
This project is approved now, and one of its deliverables is the
BestPractice that codifies the multi-version install design pattern
that it used.
rather than
This project needs to construct the Best Practice before it can get
ARC approval.
-John
