On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 11:21 PM, Dave Miner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The preview is absolutely an experiment. Indiana itself is an > experiment. OpenSolaris? Well, I don't know what to call it ;-)
I realize from that answer that my question was ill-formed. It's clear that there is some experimentation in how to build a product. My concern is that there is experimentation not only in the means of delivery but in what's being delivered. Myself, I would prefer the two parts of the experiment to be separate. > Perhaps this will be more helpful: in terms of the release taxonomy[1] > that the ARC uses, we'd say that the Indiana releases are snapshots of a > development train that has a Minor Release binding. For what it's > worth, SXDE and SXCE are classified the same way. That doesn't mean > that every snapshot will necessarily qualify to be a Minor Release in > terms of compatibility, though. If anyone's expecting that every build > that comes out won't break compatibility in some way, that's just not > realistic. Besides the unintentional cases that inevitably happen, > it'll also happen as pieces come together in stages. Obviously some > find a few of the experiments in the Indiana train unsettling, but we > think it's the best way to figure out where to go. I love the experimentation. Heaven only knows we need it. My concern here is that Indiana is trying to be (or is seen to be, or is being marketed as) several different things at once and, apart from the confusion that results, it could end up in a 'jack of all trades, master of none' scenario. So I think I would prefer to see a situation where a given release focussed on one area - which for now would probably be simply getting the mechanics of the delivery scheme sorted. -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
