On Mon, 16 May 2011, Ron Blizzard wrote:
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Dag Wieers <d...@wieers.com> wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2011, Johnny Hughes wrote:
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.
Why do you snip the explanations and ignore the arguments contained in
the text you snipped? Why no mention of the time it took to get 3.1
(not 3.0) out the door?
CentOS 3.0 was not released because the project was still in its infancy
(cAos project). I don't think it makes sense to even use it as a point of
reference (unless maybe to argue for a direct CentOS 6.1 release).
But that still makes Johnny's statement false by a large margin.
"The ZERO release is always going to take longer than the others."
Also the whole explanation does not provide any reasoning why CentOS 5.6
took 3 months. The QA team is not allowed to speak up or provide feedback,
or they could loose their 'privilege'.
Sure CentOS 6.0 is a different beast, but CentOS 6.0 was delayed in favor
of CentOS 5.6. So again, why would CentOS 6.1 be released quicker if
CentOS 5.6 has a well-known process and non of the issues Johnny was
pointing at ?
My question was very specific though.
Why constantly cast CentOS in the darkest possible light?
I don't think that's what I am doing. I commended Johnny for his very
quick CentOS 4.9 release, but I honestly can not praise a release that
is 3 months or 6 months late (with no transparency to what is going on
or how we could help).
But if anything brought up wouldn't be ignored or obfuscated, CentOS
communication would be a lot more honest, and threads would be a lot
shorter. It's because the discussion is being side-tracked that they are
becoming larger and the essence is being repeated.
There was a recent thread on centos-devel which clearly demonstrated this.
It took a long thread and real worls examples for the CentOS developers to
finally acknowledge there was a problem, and acknowledge it could be fixed
for CentOS 6. This thread could be 4 posts long if the response wouldn't
be defensive by default.
(And just like this thread, I did not start it either and am hardly the
largest contributor to the thread)
--
-- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/
-- dagit linux solutions, i...@dagit.net, http://dagit.net/
[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
