5 Jan
2009
5 Jan
'09
22:05
Can I suggest that the discussion is caused by a difference between the development processes and the delivery.
Combining a development environment that is open source where there are no absolute deadlines with a delivery process that is commercial and based upon marketing plans, industrial (contracted) production and store sales plans will inevitable that there will be mismatches.
As openSuSe will be open source, it is clear that the only solution is to change the delivery mechanism. The question is how.
David
--
D Hodgson
P: 020 71 833 722 M: 07984 069 846 F: 0845 86 75 74 1
E: david@different-perspectives.com
On Monday 05 Jan 2009, JP Rosevear wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-01-05 at 16:42 +0100, Dirk Müller wrote:
> > On Monday 05 January 2009, JP Rosevear wrote:
> > > > there were around 20 updates of gnome related packages within 4
> > > > months after 10.3 release. Thats too many.
> > >
> > > Ok - and is the only factor driving the "too many" designation resource
> > > constraints?
> >
> > Well, your question sounds to me like "Did he die because his heart
> > stopped working?". Of course, assuming infinite amount of ressources we
> > can do everything.
> >
> > The "too many" was more expressing the fuzzy feeling of why people think
> > the 10.3 model was bad (shipping many updates shortly after release
> > doesn't give a good impression of the product).
>
> Could definitely be true - I installed ubuntu 8.10 today though and it
> yielded 215 package updates (to be fair a lot from the same source
> package, something like 75 actual changes, more than half were
> recommended), so I'm not sure how much negativity this concern might
> generate. How did this compare to 11.0?
>
> I don't disagree that 10.3 was pretty tight though and not ideal.
>
> -JP
> --
> JP Rosevear jpr@novell.com
> Novell, Inc.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org