On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Gordon Messmer <yiny...@eburg.com> wrote: > No, I'm not. Neither I nor Dag, as far as I saw, brought SL into the > conversation at all. The question is not whether CentOS can build > releases in less time than SL, or even a reasonable amount of time. The > question that Dag posed was why users (or the release team) should > expect 6.1 to be done in one month, when 5.6 took three and was a fairly > well rehearsed process by that point.
Obviously I missed the part where I (or someone) said (or claimed) that 6.1 could be done in a month. What does a month have to do with anything? 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? 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.) I see no pattern in the release dates to indicate CentOS is generally falling behind SL. As has mentioned too many times now, CentOS is slower getting 6.0 out because they chose to update 4.x and 5.x first. But the time to get all three releases released appears to almost the same for both distributions. And the reason I bring this up is 1) SL is mentioned in the subject line and 2) SL is (I believe) the only other major community Red Hat rebuilding project. So, who else should I be comparing CentOS release dates with? -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
