What I am most confused by is the claim in the first set of bullet points:
Elimination of the CPU Merge Patch as a vehicle for patch conflict resolution
What exactly does that mean? Obviously, there will still be merge patches; just read further down in the note and you can see how a customer has to report a conflict, and Oracle will supply a merge patch. That is the documented procedure. Perhaps what Oracle is trying to say is that they will not ship a CPU that has your particular patch merged in, but rather a small little merge fix (aka "bandaid") that will allow the existing/original CPU to be applied. That sounds like a good thing. I remain skeptical and want to see it in action, though. *grin*
And on another note (literally), I see that the draft 10.2.0.4 bug list has been published. 1329 undocumented bugs!! Aside from all the "documented" bugs, we are hit with 1329 bug fixes for which we, as a customer, have no clue. 1329 is a big number. How is it that there are that many bugs in the 3rd patchset of its 2nd major release of its newest version of the flagship software? I am baffled.
I long for the day when Oracle has to post a page on OTN that says:
We apologize for the lack of patchsets in the past year; there simply has not been enough bug fixes/patches to justify a large patchset
And to beat another dead horse, how is it that all those bugs are "undocumented". Isn't there a more appropriate word for "fixes and patches for bugs that we are not willing to share any information whatsoever about"? "Unpublished" would be a better word. And granted, I am not going to read through all the "documented" bugs, let alone 1329. I just have a problem with "undocumented" bugs.
Did anything significant happen in the year 1329?