'Re: [networking-discuss] You are invited to the design review of'

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       opensolaris-networking-discuss
Subject:    Re: [networking-discuss] You are invited to the design review of
From:       Darren Reed <Darren.Reed () Sun ! COM>
Date:       2008-08-26 23:06:23
Message-ID: 48B48C6F.6050500 () Sun ! COM
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]


On 08/26/08 06:46, James Carlson wrote:
> Darren Reed writes:
>   
> ...
>> Thus it would be preferable if in future we could have design review
>> happen on OpenSolaris before PSARC commitment so that any
>> comments/changes from the community can be more easily folded
>> into what is presented for formal review.
>>     
>
> That looks to me like the project team's call.  If they feel they can
> manage the changes that may come out of design review, then why not do
> it in top-to-bottom order?
>
> Doesn't top-down make the most sense here?  If what you were
> suggesting were always correct, why wouldn't we start with the test
> results, then do code review, then design, and finally architecture,
> so that the ARC review included all possible sources of change?
>   

Hmm, I wasn't thinking of the architecture as being the top of the
tree, rather that the design might be but I can see how it could be
the other way around.

Darren


[Attachment #5 (text/html)]

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
  <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 08/26/08 06:46, James Carlson wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:18612.2343.137407.646204@gargle.gargle.HOWL"
 type="cite">
  <pre wrap="">Darren Reed writes:
  </pre>
...
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <pre wrap="">Thus it would be preferable if in future we could have design review
happen on OpenSolaris before PSARC commitment so that any
comments/changes from the community can be more easily folded
into what is presented for formal review.
    </pre>
  </blockquote>
  <pre wrap=""><!---->
That looks to me like the project team's call.  If they feel they can
manage the changes that may come out of design review, then why not do
it in top-to-bottom order?

Doesn't top-down make the most sense here?  If what you were
suggesting were always correct, why wouldn't we start with the test
results, then do code review, then design, and finally architecture,
so that the ARC review included all possible sources of change?
  </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Hmm, I wasn't thinking of the architecture as being the top of the<br>
tree, rather that the design might be but I can see how it could be<br>
the other way around.<br>
<br>
Darren<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>


_______________________________________________
networking-discuss mailing list
networking-discuss@opensolaris.org

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure | About | News | Add a list | Sponsored by KoreLogic