On 05/16/2011 04:32 AM, Dag Wieers wrote: > On Mon, 16 May 2011, Ron Blizzard wrote: > >> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Dag Wieers <dag at 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 ? This was mainly because we had to rewrite anaconda a bunch of times to get the ISOs to build. It was also because we kept finding issues in QA. (package A need to be rebuilt, which caused package B to be rebuilt). We added in QA at the request of the Community ... and it helps. It also makes it take longer to get a release out. That and, our developers do this in their spare time. Take a look at why samba says Samba4 is not out: ===================================== When will Samba 4.0.0 be released? When it's ready. It's very hard to say when that will be. It depends on a lot of things and people's spare time. ===================================== > My question was very specific though. > Your question is insulting and arrogant. If you want to use CentOS, then use it. If you don't then take your arrogant whining somewhere else. > >> 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). You can't help ... we tried to let you help. You don't want to help. You want to stir the pot. That you don't like the project is obvious. Go away. > > 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. We want to produce a quality product. We have been doing so for 7 years. If it is not fast enough for you, then don't use it. > > (And just like this thread, I did not start it either and am hardly the > largest contributor to the thread) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 253 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20110516/3635050e/attachment-0005.sig>