James Carlson wrote: > > I don't follow that "however." Open source doesn't mean "volatile," > nor does hosting by X.Org. > > The interfaces should be given the _right_ stability level. If NVIDIA > intends to maintain full backward compatibility (and thus will treat > deviations as bugs), and if others are building software atop these > interfaces, then "Volatile" just isn't right. That actually sounds > like "Committed" ... or perhaps "Uncommitted" if we need to remain > fearful. > > It depends upon timeframe.
NVIDIA told me last week "full compatibility should be maintained in the future". If the ARC document should reflect only the intent of the owner at the time the document is written, then I agree it should be "Committed". However, further discussions with NVIDIA revealed the intention to move this to an open source project hosted by X.Org. My experience here does not match your optimism for interface stability. If the ARC document should reflect a conservative or worst case belief of the interface stability over the life of the project, I cannot in good faith say it should be "Committed".
