This was approved at the PSARC meeting yesterday.
alan
Alan Perry wrote:
>
> I am sponsoring the resubmission of this case. The timer expires on
> 9/24/2009.
>
> This fast-track was approved back in July. However, after the
> associated code
> changes were integrated int
I am sponsoring the resubmission of this case. The timer expires on
9/24/2009.
This fast-track was approved back in July. However, after the
associated code
changes were integrated into Nevada, some issues were discovered and the
sata
team decided to rework the case.
Here are the changes re
John Plocher wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 11:02 AM, Alan Perry wrote:
>> sponsored cases with more
>> significant changes where PSARC members said "why is this a fast-track and
>> not a self-review".
>
> The key point isn't "significant changes
John Plocher wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Alan Perry wrote:
>> However, I am concerned about inconsistent application of the documented
>> process.
>
> In the past, my decision tree looked like this:
>
> Proposed stability level for new interfaces:
>
Just to be clear, I do not have a problem with more review.
However, I am concerned about inconsistent application of the documented
process.
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>> Excuse me while I express some frustration here. In the past, I have
>> sponsored cases with more substantial changes and hav
Following the recommendation of Garrett D'Amore and James Carlson, this
is being promoted from Self-Review to Fast-Track. The timer expires on
21 July 2009.
alan
Alan Perry wrote:
> I am sponsoring this self-review case.
>
> This case documents additional changes to an exi
James Carlson wrote:
> Alan Perry wrote:
>> Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>>> This is not the only criteria for self-review. Self-review cases must
>>> also be so obvious and self explanatory that no further review is
>>> desired or required. They should
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> Alan Perry wrote:
>> I am sponsoring this self-review case.
>>
>> This case documents additional changes to an existing case. I believe
>> that
>> this case qualifies for self-review because the interfaces are
>> Consolidat
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> Alan Perry wrote:
>> I am sponsoring this self-review case.
>>
>> This case documents additional changes to an existing case. I believe
>> that
>> this case qualifies for self-review because the interfaces are
>> Consolidat
This was approved at today's PSARC meeting.
Lawrence Lee wrote:
> I do appreciate all of your input.
> Please see my responses below.
>
> Larry
>
> gdamore at sun.com
> > So my questions with this are, how does the end-user who has drives
> with HPA on them configure them.
> >
> > My main fear h
James C. McPherson wrote:
> Alan Perry wrote:
>
>> Template Version: @(#)sac_nextcase 1.64 07/13/07 SMI
>> This information is Copyright 2007 Sun Microsystems
>> 1. Introduction
>> 1.1. Project/Component Working Name:
>> Host Protected Area (HPA) o
Nothing to add to the discussion. Just wanted to get the submitter on
the Reply-all list.
Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
>On Mon, 2007-11-19 at 11:53 -0800, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>
>
>>My main fear here is that we are creating yet another knob, with little
>>explanation, and no automation behind it
12 matches
Mail list logo
