Re: HEADS UP: Release schedule for 2006

On Thu, 2005-Dec-22 13:10:19 -0800, Jo Rhett wrote:
>I and many others have offered to work on this.  The core team has
>repeatedly stated that they won't integrate the efforts, which makes
>os-upgrade capability minimal and easily broken. (see current efforts)

On Thu, 2005-Dec-22 14:05:32 -0800, Jo Rhett wrote:
>On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 01:30:41PM -0800, Brooks Davis wrote:
>> This statement makes no sense.  The core team wouldn't have much to
>> do with this other than possibly being involved in making any service
>> official.  Also, approval is never given to include a non-existent
>> feature.  Easy, binary updates sound like a great idea, but without
>> seeing actual code thats all anyone can say other than offering advice.
>> If volunteering is conditional on acceptance of the work, that's a
>> chicken-egg problem and is not resolvable.  We simply can't maintain
>> quality if we accept non-existent code just because the idea sounds
>> good.
> 
>What are you talking about?  These issues have been repeatedly brought up
>in the mailing lists, and what it would require to make it possible to
>handle appropriately (namely, core os packages or a similar versioning
>mechanism) and the arguements have often been given.

I agree with Brooks.  I don't recall ever seeing a message from -core
(or anyone else talking on behalf of the Project) stating that code to
make binary updates possible would not be integrated.  For that matter,
I don't recall ever seeing code offered to implement such a feature.

Core OS packages have been discussed but I don't recall the idea ever
being vetoed.  Some work have been done in breaking bits of the base OS
out into packages (perl, games and UUCP come to mind) but packaging the
entire system is a major undertaking.  In any case, I don't see how
packaging the system would help you.  Taking Solaris as an example of
an OS which is broken up into lots of packages, patches don't replace
whole packages, they replace individual files.

-- 
Peter Jeremy