On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 01:04:17PM -0800, . wrote:
I understand completely that there are different models for the process, and I am stating that in my opinion the process rpmforge is using seems to be working better (as far as communities are concerned), and doesn't sound very hard to make work for CentOS. A model that expects people to go through the mailing list archives (even with google helping) doesn't make any sense. We need to make contributing to CentOS easy, currently it is not easy to find out where to start. Even if you find that most of the stuff in the http://wiki.centos.org/QaWiki/6/AuditStatus listed as 'confirmed, action required' have had action and there are patches posted, yet they remain.
Why do you and others attempt to compare Dag's work against that of the CentOS project? This is comparing apples to farm tractors - the projects are completely different with different requirements and different end goals. This should really be clear to *everyone* taking part in this thread and the others; if it's not you need to take a step back and think about it for a while.
I couldn't disagree more. You are in a situation where people are joining the list eager to help with Centos 6, but are being turned away due to it being difficult to find out how to help. I don't care if some 1st timer understands the wider goals of the Centos project, if they can make a working patch for a package that currently needs work, where is the problem? Lets use the resources we have available.
Go start your own rebuild efforts if you think you can do any better. Go get your group of volunteers together and see just how easy it is in practice compared to this pipe dream you and others have about how the process chain *should* work.
Enough is enough already.
John