On 04/04/2011 06:45 PM, Gilbert Sebenste wrote:
> Maybe its users need to realize that:
>
> 1. This entire thing is run by volunteers
>
> 2. This has been a very difficult release
> because of various apparent RedHat changes
>
> 3. Some releases were be faster---or slower---
> than others
>
> 4. Centos 4.9, 5.6 and 6.0 hit at pretty much the same time
>
> 5. A properly configured firewall and the latest 5.5 patches,
> along with smart web browsing, indicates that there
> should be few if any security problems with C5.5 as it
> is now (sure, there are bugs, most of them local or
> DOS attacks, and I have yet to hear of one yet)
>
> 6. When it seems like they are close, another bug or issue(s) is/are found
>
> 7. I'm beta testing software done by volunteers and people are complaining
> about "when's the new release", when there are multiple issues
> evolving/changing externally that hamper our release.
>
> So with #7, I personally get why this has been "late", as defined by some
> users. But, as Karanbir and others have stated: there is no timeline, it's
> when we can get to it. Typically 4-8 weeks, but this one has proven
> problematic. And again, more fingers in the honeypot can make things
> worse, especially when a release is trying to get pushed out the door.
>
> Now, Karanbir does realize that communication needed to be improved, and
> when there's new developments, he posts it now on Twitter. But I'd rather
> him solve the issues, than dealing with the repeated "um, hey guys, you're
> REALLY late now!". I'm sure they wanted it out the door two months ago.
> During a release is not when a project needs help. It's starting on the
> next one...thinking CentoS 5.7/6.1.
>
> Otherwise, some people really need to sit down and think if CentOS is what
> is needed, or RHEL. And as RedHat throws more monkey wrenches into their
> source, which could force anyone making a distro from RHEL harder and
> harder in the future, are you willing to wait 12-16 weeks for a new
> release? If not, head to RHEL in your next budget cycle, or something
> else. But having "been there, done that", the only thing I would have done
> differently with C5.6 is posted a few times "still have issues we're
> working on, no release date in sight yet", or words to that effect, and
> Karanbir is doing that now. Well, did; he said it should be syncing to the
> mirrors soon. Yay! Can't wait to upgrade.
Thank you. :)
As an aside, does the CentOS build environment (understanding that it
needs to be built, too), able to tweet something like "last build; X
packages OK, Y packages failed"?
The reason I ask is that this would relieve some workload for the devs,
and people who "need to know the progress" could simply follow the
tweets. No more requests for "when is it ready?" No more needing to
explain "we ran into problems" or what not. Heck, someone could even
chart the progress by feeding the build stats into a graph.
So this way, no one would have to give time lines, make guesses or
wonder. It just magically appears and users can interpret it any way
they wish.
An idea that is freely discarded. :P
--
Digimer
E-Mail: digimer@xxxxxxxxxxx
AN!Whitepapers: http://alteeve.com
Node Assassin: http://nodeassassin.org
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
