On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 06:45:46AM +0000, Ned Slider wrote: > > I see time-lines clearly published in this FAQ on the CentOS website: Trimmed for brevity. > "This will normally be within 2 weeks of the Update Set release." > > The above FAQ creates an expectation of 2 weeks being the norm. Equally > it is not unreasonable to define any release made after two weeks to be > "late" (or later than hoped if you prefer) by the developers own hopes > and expectations. "later than hoped" is a little more on target. You know as well as I do that there has never been a release date published for releases, be they primary or point releases. I read the above as an intended goal, not a hard and fast project time-line; but I will grant that it does lead consumers to expect it within the time frame referenced. That write-up should, in my opinion, be changed to reflect the realities of the situation which are that there are no published release dates and that releases are best-effort affairs. I just get irritated by seeing nothing but negative comments out of people that have been consumers of the project for years, or in the case of the post that this is a reply to, by someone that was part of the project itself. To be honest I can't recall the last time I saw Dag have anything positive to say about CentOS. Heck, I would like to see 5.6 drop as much as the next guy but I am not, nor for that matter is the overwhelming majority of the user base, crying and complaining about it. Do people honestly think that the constant lambasting as seen here and in the forums is doing anything to get 5.6 out the door faster? Do people think the "suggestions" on the -devel list build motivation for the developers to put in even more hours churning out that which people get for free? If people have nothing positive to say then, please, don't say anything at all. Seriously... If you don't like how the releases are going then make arrangements to use something else; but please do the rest of us a favor and do so quietly as no one cares to hear about it and it's just more noise for this list. CentOS isn't the only game in town unless binary compatibility with upstream is an organizational requirement; and if that's the case wait for the releases patiently. Or, and here's a truly novel idea, purchase the upstream product. Just realize that _they_ don't publish release dates, either. If these two alternatives don't meet your needs and you require binary compatibility with upstream then roll up your sleeves, get your hands dirty, and start building the releases yourself. Steps to do so have recently been published on centos-devel and are in the web-accessible archive for that list. It wasn't all that far in the past that there would be core project members posting on this list fairly regularly; sadly all the negative crap directed at them, both directly and indirectly, has pushed most all of them away. Personally I'd rather they be here and the complainers move on elsewhere. John -- Anybody can win unless there happens to be a second entry. -- George Ade (1866 - 1944), American writer, newspaper columnist, and playwright
Attachment:
pgpb2Hozpv2WS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
