On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Alexander Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It makes me wonder whether synchronised planning for a major cycle > every 2 years would be a good idea to pitch. > > I tend to think (perhaps unfoundedly) that we have this problem where, > rarely are more than a few parts of the platform truly stable and > ready to receive ISV investment at any one time. With us regularly > digging up parts of the platform that "aren't quite" cutting it and > replacing them with entirely new components (Bonobo->D-Bus, > HAL->DeviceKit, GNOME-VFS->GVFS, ...), we effect a hidden and > immeasurable cost associated with keeping software in a buildable > state throughout its own lifecycle. I have zero qualification for > making this suggestion, though -- it's just my impression. Feel free > to put me in my place. *humble* > > Alex > Mark Shuttleworth has already proposed something along these lines. I can't find it at the moment, but it's in a post somewhere at markshuttleworth.com I also think this would help significantly. Evan
-- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
