Hi, all I've changed the interface definition in http://sac.eng/Archives/CaseLog/arc/LSARC/2008/446/proposal-v2.txt
There's no more unresolved issues for this case, I'd like to close it in 24 hours if there's no more questions. --Irene On Mon, 2008-07-28 at 18:26 +0800, Jim Li wrote: > Brian: > >>>>> If these interfaces are intended for Solaris users to make use of, > >>>>> then should the interfaces be Uncommitted rather than Volatile? It > >>>>> doesn't seem much good to provide interfaces for providing dialogs > >>>>> via shell scripts if the interfaces might change or break. > >>>>> > >>>> As matter of fact, dialog is just a executable utility which is for > >>>> OpenSolaris. That's the reason why I defined it as Volatile. > >>> > >>> This doesn't seem like a good argument to me. I still don't see > >>> the value in adding interfaces that users are expected to use, that > >>> we also tell them we may change in an ad-hoc fashion. > >>> > >> Could it be ok if I change it to Uncommited? I'll check if those > >> interface change a lot recently in community. > > > > If the interfaces are being maintained in a stable fashion upstream, > > then Uncommitted would make more sense, I think. I'd check with the > > external community and maintainer. > > > From result of checking source code and feedback from community > maintainer, I think these interface should be Uncommited. > > Thanks > Jim > >
