David, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Currently, Nevada development has surpassed build 75 than Indiana is >> based upon. This means that either Nevada development must stop and >> wait for Indiana to catch up, and then push the Indiana framework >> into the head of the Nevada tree, or throw away the current tree and >> reimplement in the Indiana branch. > > No, the Nevada branch will continue as it's always been. The prototype > ISO was based on build 75a since we need to have a base to stablize the > ISO around. Our expectations is that we will be working on pushing out > revised bits via the package repository, perhaps as often as every two > weeks following the release of SXCE. I think that this plan has merit. Can I state it this way:
Nevada will continue to be the platform to test new features for OpenSolaris. SXCE releases will continue to be made under the current plan and at the same frequency. Once a SXCE milestone has been met, all new functionality will be packaged for download for inclusion into Indiana in the following weeks. Any enhancements to existing features (for example the kernel or zfs) will become a download patch for Indiana. If this is the case, can't I just state that ON is the development platform for SXCE, SXCE is the testbed platform for Indiana, and Indiana is the replacement for SXDE? I think that stating it this way will make things very clear to the OpenSolaris community. >> It also means that, since the expected release cycle of Indiana is >> much longer than the release cycle currently employed in SXCE/SXDE, >> some features that are being worked on may not be tested in a timely >> manner (before distribution). I assume there will be interim >> development releases between official Indiana releases, like SXCE is >> to SXDE? For example, Indiana doesn't have the Xen dom0 bits, so how >> would that be deployed properly? > > Again, we expect to have revised bits in the package repository on a > regular basis. From those bits, creating a revised ISO should be a > fairly straighforward process. > > By the way, although the ISO did not have the xVM dom0 bits, our > package repository will have them so stay tuned - we hope to provide > them shortly. Am I correct in assuming that this package will modify the Grub boot to be able to boot this feature? Thanks again for your response. Sorry to be a little paranoid about all this, but I've stuck my neck out to get OpenSolaris deployed throughout my organization mainly on the strength of things just coming to fruition in the SXCE releases. If the rug gets pulled out now I'm going to get one heck of a black eye. Knowledge about where things are going makes me able to head off any surprises. If SXCE will exist as a precursor for features in Indiana then that will be acceptable and I can plan a migration path to Indiana after the official release as long as it has a critical mass of these features. Gary
begin:vcard fn:Gary Gendel n:Gendel;Gary adr:;;;Hillsborough;NJ;08844;USA email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] tel;work:908-369-0334 tel;home:908-369-5496 url:http://www.genashor.com version:2.1 end:vcard
_______________________________________________ indiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
