Brian Gupta wrote:
> Garrett,
>
> Since we will be leveraging the vim source code that is already in the
> tree, do we need an additional OSR and Export review for this case?
> If so what do I/we need to do to initiate it?
>
I do not believe you need to worry about that -- the OSR and Export
review that was already performed for the source should be sufficient.
You'd need a new set of reviews if you are adding new source code from
3rd parties, however.
-- Garrett
> Thanks,
> Brian
>
> P.S. - I am loosely using Jyra's blog post as a guide:
> http://blogs.sun.com/jyrivirkki/entry/how_to_contribute_to_sfw
>
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Garrett D'Amore <gdamore at sun.com> wrote:
>
>> E-mail's fine. The case was approved at PSARC this week anyway.
>>
>> -- Garrett
>>
>> Brian Gupta wrote:
>>
>>> :)
>>>
>>> Yeah instability is the word. Do I have to submit a new draft, or is
>>> this email affirmation sufficient?
>>>
>>> -Brian
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Garrett D'Amore <gdamore at sun.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Yes, I think the point here is that releases of gvim have historically
>>>> not
>>>> introduced new incompatibilities.
>>>>
>>>> (Indeed, it would seem that there would be little that the editor would
>>>> likely be able to do that would break interface
>>>> compatibility, without seriously breaking its compatibility with legacy
>>>> vi,
>>>> which is one of its major selling points.)
>>>>
>>>> -- Garrett
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 3.1.1 Interface stability
>>>>>
>>>>> Vim/gvim has no obvious history of any interface stability and the
>>>>> expectation
>>>>> is is that dot-dot releases of gvim will be compatible.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I wonder if something is wrong with that sentence. Did you mean to say
>>>> *in*stability? (If so, tell the ARC and the case directory;
>>>> I'm just lurking.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
