On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 3:11 AM, Gordon Messmer <yinyang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 05/12/2011 02:05 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
>> 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?
>
> As far as users know, all work on 6.0 was postponed to get 5.6 done. At
> the time of 5.6's release, it was the only release the team was working
> on. Work on 5 should have been something the team was quite familiar
> with by that time. If 5.6 took 3 months to finish, then Dag's question
> is quite fair: why would we expect 6.1 to take so much less time?
You're leaving out release 4.9. You're also leaving out the fact that
two major holidays occurred during the time *frame* that these three
releases needed to be built. You're also leaving out the fact (as
mentioned by one of the developers) that they had to start from
scratch on 6.0 -- that they'll be "set up" for 6.1 when it comes out.
You're also leaving out the fact that SL had to rebuild the same three
releases -- and they're still working on the last of those -- so the
amount of time it's taking CentOS developers squares with the amount
of time required by the SL developers.
Check out the history of point releases between SL and CentOS. If I
remember correctly the release dates are pretty close -- I think
CentOS is usually out slightly earlier then SL,(realizing, of course,
that the two distributions are handled differently).
A quick review. 6.0 -- CentOS - (Soon) SL - 3/3/11 <-- same time
frame (1 of 3)
5.6 -- CentOS - 4/8/11 SL - (Soon) <--
same time frame (1 of 3)
5.5 -- CentOS - 5/14/10 SL - 5/19/10
5.4 -- CentOS - 10/21/9 SL - 11/4/9
5.3 -- CentOS - 3/31/9 SL - 3/19/9
5.2 -- CentOS - 6/24/8 SL - 6/26/8
5.1 -- CentOS - 12/2/7 SL - 1/16/8
5.0 -- CentOS - 4/12/7 SL - 5/4/7
4.9 -- CentOS - 3/2/11 SL - 5/6/11 <--
same time frame (1 of 3)
4.8 -- CentOS - 8/21/9 SL - 7/28/9
4.7 -- CentOS - 9/13/8 SL - 9/3/8
4.6 -- CentOS - 12/16/7 SL - 3/12/8
You can look them up on Wikipedia if you want more. Do you see any
huge change in patterns here? I don't. Note the first of CentOS'
releases on these three updates came out on 3/2/11, SL's first release
came on 3/3/11. It appears that the last of the three releases (one
for each distribution) will happen at about the same time also (I
don't know how long it takes a CentOS release to get through QA or how
long it takes SL to go from beta to finished, but they're both on the
home stretch.)
So, overall, it's taking both distributions a little less than seven
months on these two point releases and one major release. If you're
"cynical" you could say it's taken CentOS almost seven months on 6.0,
where it took SL a bit less than four months. But, if I were cynical,
I could say, yeah, but it only took CentOS about three weeks on 4.9
and it took SL nearly three months. And CentOS got 5.6 out in three
months where it's taking SL nearly five months. (I realize this
doesn't tell the whole story but I'm trying to drive home the point
that there are three releases and both rebuild distributions
developers are taking about the same amount of time. It is the
priorities that are different.) I don't see the need for constant
harping.
(Sorry to ramble.)
--
RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
