[CentOS-devel] 5.6 impact on 6.0 Release plan

[Hubert Bahr]

John R. Dennison wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 10:59:10PM -0600, Hubert Bahr wrote:
>   
>> A different perspective.  RHEL-5, CentOS-5 no matter what point change 
>> is essentially obsolete.  Thus the need for RHEL-6, CentOS-6 which are 
>>     
>
> 	Except for the whole "supported until 2014" thing.
>
>   
>> actually a couple of years late.  How much has changed form 5.5 + 
>> updates to 5.6.  How many existing systems will use the iso's instead of 
>>     
>
> 	Many will for new installs / rollouts where network installs,
>   
Point made new installs/rollouts
> 	cobbler, etc are not available to them.
>
>   
>> yum update.  Iso's are primarily used for new installs.  If I am making 
>> a new install, am I waiting for 5.6 or for 6.x?  I had to leave CentOS 
>> for many of my systems a couple of years ago because it did not support 
>> the newer applications.  So 6 fills a void currently painfully handled 
>> by Fedora instead of an enterprise class system.  Bug fixes are needed 
>>     
>
> 	Third-party repos provide *MUCH* of the functionality that
> 	Fedora provides; and don't bring the rolling target issues
>   
Painful is fedora, but hardware/new apps with 5 not filling the void.  
Upstream recognizes the loss to other vendors so released 6.0 well 
before 5.6 although 5.6 is much easier.
> 	with them.
>
>   
>> by installed systems, they should be released as soon as the bug is 
>> fixed.  Point changes are primarily a snapshot taken to speed up an 
>> install on a new system not to update a current system.
>>     
>
> 	People are going to continue to install 5 until 5 is EOL.  That
> 	is still 4+ years out.  And as such they need ISO sets
> 	available.
>   
Agreed but updates full fill the major majority of the needs for the 
current installs.  I never advocated dropping  5 just keeping the 
release order in the same sequence as upstream.
> 	People, at least 2.5 million if the ip count that Karanbir
> 	has mentioned is accurate, use C5; expecting that all of them are
> 	going to leave 5 behind and use 6 is just silly. 
This statement was asinine since nobody expects systems "satisfied" by 
C5 to switch.  But do not expect those dissatisfied by C5 to wait while 
you switch the release order of the upstream vendor.
>  *Many* people
> 	are locked into a platform for the life of that platform.  These
> 	are *existing* users, not those planning on migrating to 6
> 	whenever it is available.
>
>
>
>
>
> 							John
>   
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS-devel mailing list
> CentOS-devel at centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
>