>From Nicolas.Williams at sun.com Wed Aug 20 10:15:58 2008 > >On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 01:11:27PM -0400, James Carlson wrote: >> Darren J Moffat writes: >> > Given all the above this case should be marked as withdrawn sine nothing >> > in the case is valid for the new proposal. A new case for delivering top >> > should be started. >> >> What would be the point of that? I think reusing the same case (and >> providing a more up-to-date synopsis) would be the better answer. > >It's probably useful, though marginally so, to look at case summaries >and see that "prstat utility enhancements to look and act more like top" >was withdrawn and shortly after a case was submitted and approved for >"top for OpenSolaris." Is that sufficiently useful to warrant withdrawing and >submitting a new case? > >Dunno, but if not the IAM does need to be updated so the case shows up >as "top for OpenSolaris" instead of "prstat utility enhancements to look >and act more like top."
OK. As shown in the new subject line, the case title has been changed. (I will check off-line with John about what has to happen besides changing the Name: line in the IAM file to make the rest of the ARC paperwork catch up.) For your reading enjoyment, you will also find the new man page in materials/new_top.1M in the case directory. FYI, the project team will be available for ARC business at today's PSARC meeting. - Don
