On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Craig White <craig.white@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On May 12, 2011, at 2:05 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Mark Bradbury <mark.bradbury@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you expect the C6.0 -> C6.1 differences to be more complex, or less
>>>>> complex than the C5.5 -> C5.6 differences ?
>>>>>
>>>>> And given that C5.6 took 3 months, are there any reasons why C6.1 would
>>>>> take no more than 1 month ?
>>>>
>>>> Get over yourself Dag ... for goodness sake.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why? seems like a valid point to me.
>>
>> But at that time there should only be one point release on the table,
>> instead of two point releases and one major release. Is everyone
>> forgetting that 4.9, 5.6 and 6.0 were all out at the same time?
> ----
> I think you are confusing overlap with simultaneous.
>
> • 2011-02-16: Distribution Release: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4.9
> • 2011-01-13: Distribution Release: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.6
> • 2010-11-10: Distribution Release: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6
>
> 2 months elapsed from release of 6.0 before 5.6 and more than another month before 4.9
>
> Hardly qualifies at the same time unless you consider 3 months to be essentially the same time.
Same "time frame," if you want to be technical. As we've seen, work
started on CentOS 6 and was suspended while the developers worked on
4.9 and 5.6. So, during the same time "frame," two point releases and
a major release all needed to be done. Sorry I didn't carefully choose
my words or go into "lawyer speak" mode.
And, has been noted, Scientific Linux gave preference to 6.0 and, as
of yet, still have not completed 5.6. It's not often that either
development team gets hit with a "triple whammy" like this. Scientific
Linux chose one path, CentOS chose another. Personally I happen to
agree with CentOS' choice here.
--
RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
