On Thu, 22 Jul 2010, R P Herrold wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010, Charlie Brady wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010, Charlie Brady wrote:
timeliness *appears* not to be important to the CentOS project, hence this discussion.
Not intended to be a smear - please see timeline @
And this the week after OLS.
Yes, I missed you.
Et tu? Ah well.
Sure it is a data point and I suppose 'we' of CentOS are supposed to promise to never disappoint whomever again.
Of course not.
However, it is your choice whether you respond by saying "yes, we can try to do better. Would you like to help?", or "tough luck. That's the way it is. Take it or leave it."
I would like a future with a CentOS even more successful, ...
Well, recognizing areas which are currently sub-optimal and trying to find improvements would likely help in achieving that.