> * W. Wayne Liauh ([email protected]) wrote: > > > If you don't want to run the risk of running into > > > surprises, then don't > > > run the development builds. > > > > Don't give me that *($&@#$^& PLEEEEEASE! > > Let's keep things civil, shall we. No need to shout. > > > Only two, or at most three, more months to the > scheduled official > > "release" date (according to your "definition"). > As one very > honorable person once said, only the paranoid > survive--the key word is > "survive". > Ok, and what is your point? We know when the release > is scheduled. We > know there are bugs that we have to solve before we > release. We also > know that there's still a ton more work to do > (certainly in the Install > space which I work on) that won't make the next > release. > > > You can live in your own cocoon, but not many of us > who have invested > > so much of our time, voluntarily as well as > enthusiastically, on this > > stuff--and for so long. Patience will not run > forever. > > I'm not living in any cocoon. I (and others on my > team) have been > investing *ridiculous* amounts of time on this stuff. > Certainly well > bove and beyond what might be considered normal. Are > you saying that > we don't count as much as volunteers just because we > work for Sun? I > don't think that's fair at all. I know I've > certainly given up large > chunks of my personal time to get things done for the > greater good. I > know others that have as well. Would we like things > to move faster? > Sure, but that's not reality. We're going as fast as > we can, but we're > in a marathon and not a sprint. > > > A poorly packaged "release" (or "build" if you > insist on the exact > > wording) is an opportunity (for greater extent of > debugging) lost. If > > The whole *point* of releasing development snapshots > (builds) is so that > we can in fact get external debugging assistance > (among other things). > If we didn't want that we wouldn't bother releasing > the bi-weekly builds > and just be done with it. > > > the development team is short on hands, ostensibly > due to RIFs, then > > perhaps someone in control could try to enlist some > of us (non-Sun) > > for the pre-release (i.e., release of a build) > testing. Anyway, the > > priority is to get the job done right. I am not > interested in playing > > with words. Please keep in mind that it is > farkingly offensive to > > assume that only Sun has a stake in seeing the > success of OpenSolaris. > > And just how exactly did *anything* I say give you > the impression that I > think only Sun has a stake in seeing OpenSolaris > succeed? That's > absurdly not true. OpenSolaris will absolutely fail > if Sun is the only > entity pushing it. There's no one I know of > personally inside (or > outside for the most part) Sun that doesn't believe > that. > > While you may not like the reality it doesn't change > it. Development > builds (which is what the releases in between the > official releases are) > are *going* to have bugs. Plain and simple. > Nothing's going to change > hat. As I said, we try as hard as we can to make > things as bug free as > possible, but even the official releases aren't > entirely bug free. > > As I said, if build 107 was as poorly packaged and > bug ridden as you say > and totally unusable why would we release it? We've > held back releases > before from public consumption for just that reason. > > -- > Glenn > _______________________________________________ > indiana-discuss mailing list > [email protected]
Talk is cheap, OK. Just show me the beef. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ indiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
