SInce nobody else has said so explicitly yet, +1 on the case, and +1 on
just needing the single case. (I.e. I'm +1'ing both the announce in S10
and the removal in OpenSolaris.)
- Garrett
On 03/11/10 11:35 AM, Brian Utterback wrote:
> If everyone will be happy if we just state that the removal is minor
> binding and the obsolescence is patch binding, then consider it done.
>
> On 03/11/10 14:23, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>> Brian Utterback wrote:
>>> On 03/11/10 11:48, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
>>>
>>>> This seems like two separate things, which need two different bindings
>>>> (and would normally be two separate cases).
>>>>
>>>> EOL notification and interface reclassification in Solaris 10 would
>>>> be a
>>>> patch binding.
>>>>
>>>> EOL removal in Solaris Next would be a minor binding (feature
>>>> removal is
>>>> not eligible for patch binding).
>>>>
>>>> Is this what you mean?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The project team thinks of this as one action, hence the single
>>> proposal. We can split this into to cases you that is desired.
>>
>> EOF's (removing a feature from a product, as you're doing here) are
>> often done
>> as one case, but with different release bindings for the two phases,
>> as Andrew
>> described.
>>
>
