John Martin wrote:
> James Carlson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 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".
>>>
>>
>> That's exactly what I'm saying.
>>
> I'm not familiar with the rules for defining interface stability. I must
> rely here on the ARC members. If what I have described means the
> interface
> should be marked as "Committed", I have no problems with doing so.
>
It sounds to me, like you're not ready for Committed. I hear "intent"
to remain stable, but I also hear a belief that it may be premature to
declare this, because the project is so young.
Despite Jim's concerns, I'd rather see a too conservative stability than
a too generous one. Its trivial to bump the commitment later if we
later learn/decide that the "intent" seems to reasonably match reality.
-- Garrett
