"Michael S. Tsirkin" <> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 05:01:24PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
>> Patrick Durusau <> writes:
>> > TAB-556 Conformance targets
>> >
>> > After reading 2.2.1 Legacy Interface, again, I have a suggestion
>> > for conformance targets in section 9 (subject to my getting this
>> > wrong): 1. Non-Transitional Device - enumerate which sections of
>> > normative text I MUST conform to in order to have a
>> > Non-Transitional Device. 2. Non-Transitional Driver - enumerate
>> > which sections of normative text I MUST conform to in order to
>> > have a Non-Transitional Driver. 3. #1 plus ?? = Transitional
>> > Device. 4. #2 plus ?? = Transitional Driver with the
>> > sub-numbering under 1 - 4 specifying the details of
>> > conformance. Yes?
>>
>> I originally wanted to make all the legacy sections non-normative, and
>> thus avoid any MUSTs in there. It's a bit weird, becuase legacy systems
>> our outside the scope of the current standard, but we really do want to
>> be kind for people in transition.
>>
>> I think Michael had objections to this, though. So here's my
>> compromise:
>
> I thought about this some more.
> This will basically mean that 1.0 co-exists with 0.9
> and we'll have to maintain 0.9 and fix bugs there :(
>
> It isn't a lot of work to make it normative, why not
> do it and make 1.0 supercede 0.9 completely?
I can see your point, but I'll have to think about it. I have just
spent three days sorting out the normative from non-normative sections
of our document, and it's not a trivial transformation.
Cheers,
Rusty.
