On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 10:48:03AM -0500, James B. Byrne wrote:
> After all, because we use CentOS rather than RHEL and forgo the
> provision of RH's expert advice, then we ourselves and our
> organisations are a self-identified technologically advanced user
> community. And we are concerned more with the entire package than
> with any particular component or detail. If we have concerns and
> reservations then perhaps RH should have concerns. If we express them
> here then there is a chance, a small chance but a chance nonetheless,
> that someone at RH with a view a little broader than that evidenced in
> most of the traffic on the Fedora devel list, might take notice.
I think this essentially sums up your point, and elucidates what I
think is the error in your thinking.
At the point where anything is deployed in CentOS, all the decisions
that have been made regarding the technologies in question have been
made. The technologies had probably a year of use in Fedora and most
likely several months of testing in RHEL's internal development. If
you're talking about critical core software, whole infrastructures
have been built around it, documentation, build infrastructure,
deployment guidelines, etc.
I agree that following the Upstream is a significant time investment,
however, as the saying goes, "You Get What You Pay For". Posting to a
CentOS list asking for change is probably too little, too late.
--
Jonathan Billings <billings@xxxxxxxxxx>
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
