Richard Lowe wrote: > Joe Little wrote: >> On 2/14/07, Adam Leventhal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Hey Joe, >>> >>> That sounds like a great idea especially for people who are planning on >>> deploying Solaris Nevada or building software solutions out of it. Would >>> it be sufficient to have, say, two builds of stabilitzation every 3 >>> months >>> or so? >>> >> >> If its every three months, I would sort of want a good solid two or >> three weeks of stabilization. However, personally I feel something >> closer to every two months. But yes, once per quarter seems to gel >> with peoples calendars. > > Well obviously, because it's the SX:DE schedule and most likely what's > going to happen anyway.
So, what Rich points out that hasn't been explicitly stated yet, was that it was somewhat bad form to start discussions around a 'stabilization' period before the announcement for the quarterly plans of SX Developer Edition were announced. Hopefully we won't go there again - not that we all don't think that stabilization in the kernel should be a foundation of any development model, but I think we need to continue to push hard for as much transparency as possible right across the board. Glynn _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
