--- Phil Schaffner Philip.R.Schaffner@NASA.gov wrote:
On Fri, 2007-09-07 at 00:36 +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote:
pushing out each tree, as it is, for upto 3
sub-release deep is just plain
stupid.
Don't pull any punches now. :-)
Seems it could get to more than 3 sub-releases, unless the upstream policy is to limit it to the last 3. Witness 3.9 and 4.5.
So if anyone has ideas on how we can do this in a
sane manner, please do
speak up :)
Well, how about backing up to the basic assumptions before suggesting solutions. Just because the upstream with their much greater (paid) resources seem to be going to a M.N release scheme, is CentOS constrained to follow precisely in their footsteps? What's wrong with keeping the current scheme of following the latest release and continuing to have M as a pointer to the latest M.N tree? If someone REALLY needs the minor release[es] with associated updates, they can go to the upstream for support; however, I suspect that would be a relatively rare case. If the demand is there down the road, can always re-evaluate the policy.
I agree 100%
but _if_ centos team whant to provide same taste as uptream but do not have hardware to support it, I subjest to make a public statement, explaining that (willing to do but lack of hard) maybe CentOS get an storage donation to provide that ;-)
So, am I sane?
I hope you are, because I agree with your criteria ;-)
cu roger
__________________________________________ RedHat Certified ( RHCE ) Cisco Certified ( CCNA & CCDA )
____________________________________________________________________________________ Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. http://sims.yahoo.com/