On Friday, February 18, 2011 03:36:58 pm Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> Obviously always exceptions.... but as you alluded to, "know your
> audience" is a good rule of thumb.
Public Speaking 101.
Also 'Linux Distribution 101' in reality; the CentOS audience consists largely of those wanting as close to upstream EL as is possible without the associated monetary costs. CentOS meets a very definite need for, and has a very distinct audience in, those who must have binary-level compatibilty with the upstream EL, bugs and all.
And I would hazard to say that most, if not up to 90%, of CentOS users have zero desire for 'release early, release often' but prefer 'release correctly, and release infrequently.' For my servers, I distinctly prefer the latter, since I do run things that require EL binary compatibility and would be seriously problematic were they to break because of an update.
If 'release early, release often' is your motto, but you still want EL binary compatibility, then SL is going to be more your thing. If you want bleeding edge and everything fully upstream up to date, give Fedora a whirl (and it'll make you dizzy, which might be a good thing (I run Fedora on my laptop, for instance...)).
And those who want to see how things are done in Fedora, the complete process is documented in depth in the Release Engineering SOP wiki page at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ReleaseEngineering/SOP
For that matter, if you wanted to re-compose an EL6 rebuild, you would actually find it highly educational to do it the Fedora way, since EL6 is somewhat based on F12. The scripts for Fedora are there, and the procedures are there; have fun!
The SOP's you would be most interested in would be the Mass Rebuild and the Compose.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
