On 05/15/2011 05:12 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote: > On 05/15/2011 02:23 PM, Ron Blizzard wrote: >> Obviously I missed the part where I (or someone) said (or claimed) >> that 6.1 could be done in a month. > > Well, that is where this branch of the thread began. > > http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2011-May/111443.html > > Ljubomir Ljubojevic began the branch with the expectation that there > would be not more than a month between C6.0 and C6.1. I believe that he > misspoke, and probably meant that there would be not more than one month > between the upstream release of RHEL 6.1 and the release of C6.1. > > http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2011-May/111473.html > > Dag Wieers replied and asked if there was any reason to believe that > this would actually happen. I think this is a perfectly valid question. > If 5.6 could not be done in a month, why would we expect that 6.1 > would be? > >> What does a month have to do with anything? > > It was a time frame posed on the list. I don't believe it has any > significance beyond Ljubomir's suggestion that 6.1 could be completed in > that amount of time. It seems unlikely. > >> There is a certain amount of time required to rebuild the "upstream" >> releases. Whatever that amount of time is, CentOS and SL seem to >> require about the same number. So I'm trying to figure out... why is >> CentOS attacked so much for taking too long? -- whereas SL is lauded >> as the "go to" distribution? > > Well, CentOS is generally attacked for taking a long time because users > have had no visibility into the process. Most people make what I would > think is a perfectly reasonable request: not that the distribution is > available immediately and not that a specific release date is given and > kept, but that information about the tasks to be completed is published. > The process around building CentOS has traditionally been very > secretive, which makes the name "*Community* Enterprise OS" seem very inapt. > > SL is not so much lauded, I think, as discussed right now because users > who want a rebuild of RHEL 6.0 have no other option. There is no beta > of CentOS for them to install and review (which would make contribution > significantly easier). Users are trying to figure out whether or not it > makes sense for them to wait for CentOS 6.0 or use something that's > available now. Because they have very little insight into the process > or progress that has been made, they cannot easily evaluate that > question. It is reasonable for this to produce a great deal of anxiety. > >> As I showed in the list of release dates, CentOS and SL have almost >> always been fairly close (CentOS usually a little quicker). So why the >> claim that CentOS is getting worse on release dates? (General claim, >> not specifically yours.) > > Look at wikipedia's page describing CentOS. They include a column for > the delay between the upstream release and CentOS's. For the 5 series, > it looks like: > > Release Delay > 5 28d > 5.1 25d > 5.2 34d > 5.3 69d > 5.4 49d > 5.5 44d > 5.6 85d > > Almost every release in the 5 series took longer than the initial > release for 5.0. Even if you ignore the release of 5.6, there is a > generally upward trend in the amount of time taken for each release. > How could anyone reasonably claim that CentOS is NOT getting worse on > release dates? > > I can't even begin to comprehend the logical failure behind the idea > that because SL and CentOS are keeping up with each other that CentOS is > not getting worse. Again, Dag interjected only to ask why any > reasonable person would expect 6.1 to take only one month when 5.6 took > three. The fact that there is a general trend toward longer release > delays supports that question. > >> I see no pattern in the release dates to >> indicate CentOS is generally falling behind SL. Where is Ubuntu telling people exactly where they stand on producing a their new releases. What about Red Hat ... how about Fedora. Is there someplace I do not know about where these distributions tell you what they are having trouble building? Show me another list where the developers interact with the users as much as this one. CentOS has never been secretive. We published examples of our build scripts for the RPMs and the disros, the mock we use and plague. Something Red Hat has never done. We have never been secretive. I even posted the hidden build requirements. What the hell is secretive about the process ... I have had it with this list. Screw it ... I quit. Where is the SELS
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
