On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 12:10 AM, Ned Slider<n...@unixmail.co.uk> wrote: > R P Herrold wrote: >> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Ned Slider wrote: >> >>> Rather than dumping *even more work* on the core CentOS project (who are >>> already clearly struggling to provide even the core distro >>> at present), ... >> >> It may be clear to Ned, but is not the case. >> > > Then we disagree. Others can look and judge for themselves :) > >> I wish people not in the know would not purport to >> characterize CentOS internals, but speculation is a human >> trait, I guess >> > > Bingo! That's the whole point Russ - members of the Community don't know > what's going on with *their* Community Enterprise OS because there is no > dissemination of information. > > What I *do* "know" is that 5.3 took ~10 weeks to release, and before > that 4.7 took ~7 weeks. We are already 6 weeks into the 4.8 release > cycle with no news of how it's progressing or when a release is to be > expected. Prior to this, update sets typically took ~4 weeks to release. > > Struggling? Maybe/maybe not. Struggling within a reasonable time frame - > depends on your definition of reasonable and time frame I guess. Perhaps > this is where we disagree above. > > Anyway, as I said previously, I would rather see the CentOS Project > concentrate on the core product and do a really good job on that (i.e, a > move closer to the old 4 week release lag than the current 10 week > release lag), and I would much rather see this than effort diluted by > taking on a contrib repo.
Agree > >> I would note that from the earliest days of RPMForge, Dag >> offered, and indeed granted comit rights to me, which I have >> not used. I find it easier to use the bug tracker, and to >> send emails to him ... lazy of me, I know, but again human >> nature in play >> >> Additionally I regularly pull, fork, and fix 'broken' RF >> packages [for self, or in consulting engagements], and drop >> the SRPM's in my personal archive to satisfy GPL source >> availability obligations. I've seem parts of my packagings >> end up elsewhere which is fine >> > > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
