Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
>
> If people ask questions that are answered in the man pages, it is obvious to
> point to the related man pages. If the issues beyond integrating star at all
> are not forgotten again, I can live with a phased integration.
>
1) If there are more detailed man pages here, then they are absent from
the case materials. I shouldn't have to googling around to find out
materials that are intrinsic to the case.
2) The above paragraph conveys a message that you expect someone
(PSARC?) to drive forward with making libshily (or whatever it is
called) public. If you want to do that, then *you* (or some project
team you might be working with) needs to do that. PSARC doesn't
normally start new cases on its own -- a project team has to start the
process. You can't hold the ARC hostage to your future demands, and you
can't expect it to do work that you should be taking on yourself.
3) I'm a bit unhappy with the term "phased integration". While the
integration may be phased, what I'm most concerned with is the review
process. "phased review" might be a better term. More simply, I don't
think we are talking about this case offering any review (and thus no
opinion nor precedent) as to the integration (or lack thereof) of this
"portability" layer.
3) That said, are we in agreement that this case is just about star and
rmt for now, and that if you want to do /usr/include/schily (or
whatever) you will need to come back to ARC with a case for that?
-- Garrett
> J?rg
>
>
