[CentOS] community communication

[Johnny Hughes]

On 05/03/2011 08:15 AM, Brunner, Brian T. wrote:
> centos-bounces at centos.org wrote:
>> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 9:12 AM, John R. Dennison
>> <jrd at gerdesas.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 12:59:03AM -0700, Akemi Yagi wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Forum Announcement is yet another place you may want to check:
>>>
>>> Forums, mailing lists, twitter feeds...
>>>
>>> Enough is enough.
>>>
>>> Can we _please_ consolidate such status updates, the few times they
>>> appear, at _one_ location?  People should not have to play guessing
>>> games as to where status updates may or may not appear, nor should
>>> they have to be checking a minimum of 3 sources to locate such
>>> information. 
>>>
>>> Having a single location would be a great boon and would allow us to
>>> point people to one "official" location when the inevitable
>>> questions on releases come up.
>>
>> +1
> 
> +1
> And it's not asking too much that the CentOS team post *here* the information for 
> which they KNOW we're waiting with bated breath; meaning *here on this list as 
> well as on their many other locations*, including forums I don't have access to 
> on a regular basis.

And the people who do not have access to their e-mail want the twitter
updated so they can read it on their cell phones.

And the people who like forums want that updated.

etc, etc.

Look, we have "NO IDEA" when everything is going to be done on CentOS 6.
 Anyone telling you anything else is give you an estimate, based on
prior experience.  The problem is, if we knew how to fix the particular
problems that we have, then they would already be fixed.

Every time we (the CentOS Team) post on this list, it leads to a huge
thread with same detractors looking to post bad things about the CentOS
team.  Then the same "CentOS Fanbois" come to our rescue.  Then I
(Johnny Hughes) post something tell people who want to use CentOS to use
it and for people who don't want to use it to use something else.  Then
we start a huge flamewar that greatly increases the noise to signal
ratio of this list.  Lets see if we can avoid that on this thread.

We will release CentOS 6 to QA as soon as we get it finished.  We will
move it to the servers as soon as the QA team agrees that it works as we
intend it to.  We have no earthly idea when that will be until we get a
valid tree (which we do not have yet).  Once we have a valid tree, we
then must get a valid "distribution build" (that is ... take a valid
tree and produce valid install images).

Since we have never gotten a good "distribution build" for CentOS 6, we
have no idea what "quirks" that will require us to work around.  We have
had to make major changes to anaconda for each of the last 3 or 4
releases to make them work (especially CentOS-5).  These changes are
rolled into our anaconda SRPMS (you can look at the patches there if
interested), but the issues are usually quite a pain to work around and
we KNOW in detail how the C4 and C5 anaconda works.  We are not nearly
as familiar with the C6 distro build facilities and what might be
required to work around any issues we find with that.  So, any estimates
that we give hinge on our ability to get the distro to build correctly
with the "as released" upstream code.  That has been problematic for at
least the last 3 releases of CentOS-5 and also CentOS 4.7 and 4.8.

Karanbir has a goal of getting the 6.0 tree to the QA team by the 10th
of May.  Whether or not we can meet that, I have no idea.  I can post to
this list on the 10th if we miss getting the tree to QA.

-------------- 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/20110503/32fdc8a7/attachment.sig>