On May 15, 2011, at 3:52 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote: > You're leaving out release 4.9. You're also leaving out the fact that > two major holidays occurred during the time *frame* that these three > releases needed to be built. You're also leaving out the fact (as > mentioned by one of the developers) that they had to start from > scratch on 6.0 -- that they'll be "set up" for 6.1 when it comes out. > You're also leaving out the fact that SL had to rebuild the same three > releases -- and they're still working on the last of those -- so the > amount of time it's taking CentOS developers squares with the amount > of time required by the SL developers. ---- but you're leaving out a very important distinction - SL released all the updates so the lack of a 5.6 release by SL is merely the installer disc's which is significant only to people who are looking to install SL on hardware that is newly supported by 5.6 and not 5.5. Their updated 5.6 packages (and the packages of primary concern are the security updates) have been available for some time - sooner than CentOS 5.6 packages. I think the time factor squaring is relevant only when you use the milestone targets.
Craig _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
