Btw, this case was approved at PSARC today. Alan, can you update the
IAM file please?
Thanks.
- Garrett
Rick Matthews wrote:
> +1
>
> On 07/14/09 07:56 PM, Alan Perry wrote:
>> Following the recommendation of Garrett D'Amore and James Carlson,
>> this is being promoted from Self-Review t
+1
On 07/14/09 07:56 PM, Alan Perry wrote:
> 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
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", but rather "what is the
> existing stability le
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", but rather "what is the
existing stability level of the things being changed
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:
>
> {Project Private, Not an
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:
{Project Private, Not an Interface} ) => Self Review
{Con
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
Alan Perry wrote:
> 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 usually should not be in
Alan Perry wrote:
> 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
>>> Consolidation
>>> Private and b
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 usually should not be introducing
>> new architecture.
>>
>> I believe this
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 existing case. I believ
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 usually should not be introducing
>>> new archite
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
>> Consolidation
>> Private and backwards compatible with the
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
>> Consolidation
>> Private and backwards compatible with the
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 Consolidation
> Private and backwards compatible with the existing interfaces.
>
This is no
15 matches
Mail list logo
