>
> On 02/22/2011 08:26 PM, Thomas Bendler wrote:
> > And to make my point clear, I don't believe it is rocket science to
> > get such a release cycle established if _more_ skilled people are
> > involved in the release creation (beyond translation work).
> I do believe you dont know what you are talking about, have done no
> research or aware of the CentOS process. You seem to be going on and on
> about getting more eyes on the ball, which is exactly what we attempted
> to do last year, and the option is still open.
>
>
> Funny to know that I don't know what I'm talking about but maybe you can
> be more specific. As I already pointed out in another mail, for me it
> look like that having more than one release at the same time (4.9, 5.6
> and 6) result in a major slow down of release cycle time. This means for
> me, the project isn't able to scale (correct me if I'm wrong). When the
> project can't scale it is under normal circumstances a matter of human
> resources or technical boundaries. As you told me already in December,
> it is not a technical problem. So from my point of view it could _only_
> be a matter of human resources in terms that not enough people working
> on the release (again, correct me if I'm wrong). To offer my help I
> asked already in December, please provide a list of packages that don't
> compile so that people that are willing to help can help getting this
> packages compiled (i.e. with differnet mock settings or whatever needed
> to get this compiled). If the recompile isn't possible because the SRPM
> is broken they can submit Bugreports to RH. But I only saw such a list
> on the SL website
> (
https://www.scientificlinux.org/distributions/6x/build/problembyrpm),
> not on the CentOS website.
>
> What I heard in the meantime is that CentOS has a policy that the next
> release must be compiled with CentOS what I think is a bit funny simply
> because RedHat don't use a build environment based in RedHat (I read an
> article in the press indicating that they use FC12 koji with some FC13,
> FC14 backports, but I can't proof this). But the point is still, if you
> and your team allow skilled people to support you in the release
> creation (not by signing packages or so, but to work out open items,
> problems, whatsoever) it is something that the CentOS project will
> benefit, specially if you look at the mails currently on the list, most
> mails are from the same type, when is CentOS X.X released and why isn't
> it already released.