On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 06:45:46AM +0000, Ned Slider wrote: > > I see time-lines clearly published in this FAQ on the CentOS website:
Trimmed for brevity.
> "This will normally be within 2 weeks of the Update Set release."
>
> The above FAQ creates an expectation of 2 weeks being the norm. Equally
> it is not unreasonable to define any release made after two weeks to be
> "late" (or later than hoped if you prefer) by the developers own hopes
> and expectations.
"later than hoped" is a little more on target. You know as well
as I do that there has never been a release date published for
releases, be they primary or point releases. I read the above
as an intended goal, not a hard and fast project time-line; but
I will grant that it does lead consumers to expect it within
the time frame referenced. That write-up should, in my opinion,
be changed to reflect the realities of the situation which are
that there are no published release dates and that releases are
best-effort affairs.
I just get irritated by seeing nothing but negative comments out
of people that have been consumers of the project for years, or
in the case of the post that this is a reply to, by someone that
was part of the project itself. To be honest I can't recall the
last time I saw Dag have anything positive to say about CentOS.
Heck, I would like to see 5.6 drop as much as the next guy but I
am not, nor for that matter is the overwhelming majority of the
user base, crying and complaining about it. Do people honestly
think that the constant lambasting as seen here and in the
forums is doing anything to get 5.6 out the door faster? Do
people think the "suggestions" on the -devel list build
motivation for the developers to put in even more hours churning
out that which people get for free?
If people have nothing positive to say then, please, don't say
anything at all.
Seriously... If you don't like how the releases are going then
make arrangements to use something else; but please do the rest
of us a favor and do so quietly as no one cares to hear about it
and it's just more noise for this list. CentOS isn't the only
game in town unless binary compatibility with upstream is an
organizational requirement; and if that's the case wait for the
releases patiently. Or, and here's a truly novel idea, purchase
the upstream product. Just realize that _they_ don't publish
release dates, either.
If these two alternatives don't meet your needs and you require
binary compatibility with upstream then roll up your sleeves,
get your hands dirty, and start building the releases yourself.
Steps to do so have recently been published on centos-devel and
are in the web-accessible archive for that list.
It wasn't all that far in the past that there would be core
project members posting on this list fairly regularly; sadly all
the negative crap directed at them, both directly and
indirectly, has pushed most all of them away. Personally I'd
rather they be here and the complainers move on elsewhere.
John
--
Anybody can win unless there happens to be a second entry.
-- George Ade (1866 - 1944), American writer, newspaper columnist,
and playwright
pgpOGZshKaPtf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
