[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.

Thanks!
-steve

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