[cgl_discussion] Another potential errata: PRF.1.0

Steven Dake sdake at mvista.com
Fri Jan 9 14:23:01 PST 2004

Unless someone objects, I suggest we not do errata on maturity.  The
reasoning is that all of these projects will transition maturity states,
and then we will have a big mess of errata on our hands to keep up with
the changes.

Atleast in MontaVista, we have released the O1 scheduler in 3 products
and at this point, the O1 scheduler is production ready so I think there
is no risk of a top issues item.

I'd like to think that our first errata published will be our last, or
atleast for some time until real registration of distros takes place.


On Fri, 2004-01-09 at 14:58, Fleischer, Julie N wrote:
> Eric pointed out to me that we may need an errata for PRF.1.0.  The
> maturity is listed as "Experimental;" however, I thought our take was
> that the O(1) scheduler and kernel pre-emption in the Linux kernel fully
> complete this requirement.  In which case, it should be a maturity of
> "Production."  (If it's not, then it's a "Top Issues" item, since what's
> in the kernel wouldn't be ready for registration yet.)
> Or, are we not doing errata on "Maturity" columns?
> - Julie
> **These views are not necessarily those of my employer.**
> _______________________________________________
> cgl_discussion mailing list
> cgl_discussion at lists.osdl.org
> http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/cgl_discussion

More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list