Hi,
On 01/05/2011 11:56 AM, Thomas Bendler wrote:
the process could be more open, see SL i.e., but regardless how open the
Couple of things worth clearing up:
CentOS is not SL CentOS and SL target a very different Goal Set ( there is user end overlap, which imho is good )
process is, due to the fact that no alpha, beta whatever relaeases are in the wild it is not possible to test the current state, check for
When we asked around for help from people, the *currnet* state of CentOS was a bunch of srpms that needed to be looked at for content audits. These srpms are widely available. What do you want to do with these sources that would imply to you a beta or an alpha state ? as far as I am concerned those sources represent the final product pretty much.
> Are there any plans to tackle the human bottleneck issues within the > CentOS development process? Absolutely, but tackle them by doing the right thing - and finding people who both (a) know what they are doing, (b) understand the CentOS process and (c) are able to bring a certain trust level to the community of users.Why not an open approach.
Can you quantify what you mean by 'open approach' ( basically, what steps and what gains those steps would bring about )
The aim was to focus people's attention to the upstream beta, better product and that loop etc. We could have started earlier, sure. But now that we have started 2 months back and your own contribution status stays at nil, why are you interested ?How and what should be contributed if the normal user didn't even know what problems remains?
Problems remain where ? in CentOS or RHEL ? It was RHEL6 that had a public beta, for issues that should have been reported against bugzilla.r.c; or am I misunderstanding what you said ?
Don't get me wrong, I am well aware of the fact that there are issues and situations that need looking at and changing. But lets do the right thing rather than just doing something. Going by the popularist current mood of people on this list, I think people just want early access to a codebase they can start using for their own use rather than actually working towards building CentOS-6. Which makes me fear that the only way we are going to get C6 out of the door in the next few weeks is by clamping up, talking to the usual-suspects and just going back to the CentOS-5 process. And to be honest, I don't really think these conversations over the past two months have been wasted; but in the grant scheme of things - getting 6.0 out of the door might be a better target for now - as long as we can somehow agree that we get back to this process engineering immediately after so as to not be in the same situation, come 6.1.
Also, failback to the CentOS-5 process isn't necessarily a bad thing - we know it works :)
- KB