Stefan Teleman wrote:
> Having said that, it was clearly a mistake to classify APR's ABI in
> 2.0.x as Committed, or Stable, considering the fact that SMI does *NOT*
> own the Apache code, and cannot enforce any kind of Interface Stability
> Commitments at apache.org. This classification was made on a series of
> assumptions. These assumptions were based on someone else's code.
> I will assert that any Stability Classification above "Uncommited" for
> code written and controlled outside of SMI is a work of fiction.
SMI can enforce interface stability by choosing not to upgrade to versions
which break ABI's. Stability classifications are easier to manage for
upstream components which share the interface stability philosophies, but
they are fundamentally a promise between Solaris/OpenSolaris/SMI and the
developers and end-users of Solaris/OpenSolaris, not a reflection of the
upstream project.
> This also creates the perception that the ARC submitter for any software
> controlled outside of SMI, and which proposes to export Stable or
> Committed Interface Levels, can predict the future. I am not prepared to
> assert such innate abilities.
They are not being asked to predict the future, only to explain what
level of committment they are willing to offer. Neither Sun nor
OpenSolaris is required to adopt all new versions from upstream projects
(and clearly we haven't in the past - though usually to our detriment).
--
-Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersmith at sun.com
Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering
