On 05/16/2011 02:44 AM, Dag Wieers wrote: > On Thu, 12 May 2011, Johnny Hughes wrote: > >> On 05/12/2011 10:09 AM, Craig White 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? >>> >>> 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. >> >> The ZERO release is always going to take longer than the others. > > Past numbers debunks this myth: > > CentOS 4.0 took 23 days > > CentOS 5.0 took 28 days > > CentOS 6.0 is not released after 6 months. > > While eg. > > CentOS 4.8 took 3 months > > CentOS 5.6 took 3 months > > See also: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CentOS > Yes, and I told you why that is ... upstream had good beta/rc programs for those c4.0 and c5.0. The releases were built entirely on the beta's ... the build environment was good. For 3.0 and 6.0, we had to invent a new build system and had to host it on a different OS. They did not build it on the beta/rc. It will be released when it is released, if you don't like it then leave.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
