Hi,
just a question on whether there is a known ETA for it. The reason I'm asking is that I accidentially removed some 5.2. kernel support from ATrpms (not for the 5.2 plus kernels, just the vendor ones) and if 5.3 would take longer I would rebuild the erased bits. Otherwise I would ask the users to wait for a couple of days.
Thanks!
Axel Thimm wrote:
Hi,
just a question on whether there is a known ETA for it. The reason I'm asking is that I accidentially removed some 5.2. kernel support from ATrpms (not for the 5.2 plus kernels, just the vendor ones) and if 5.3 would take longer I would rebuild the erased bits. Otherwise I would ask the users to wait for a couple of days.
Thanks!
Hi Axel,
There is still no ETA because QA has not yet started (packages were not pushed to the QA tree). We're still waiting for Karanbir to come back from his honeymoon and/or Johnny to reappear ... so maybe you'd better continue providing support for the 5.2 kernels. But it's up to you of course ;-)
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
There is still no ETA because QA has not yet started (packages were not pushed to the QA tree). We're still waiting for Karanbir to come back from his honeymoon and/or Johnny to reappear ... so maybe you'd better continue providing support for the 5.2 kernels. But it's up to you of course ;-)
Is there anything we can do to help? It seems unfortunate that progress on this project might stop if one person goes on a honeymoon and another disappears.
Charlie Brady napsal(a):
Is there anything we can do to help? It seems unfortunate that progress on this project might stop if one person goes on a honeymoon and another disappears.
Hi, I'm also prepared to lend a helping hand. I consider the state not enough for "enterprise community distro". Regards, David Hrbáč
On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 10:25 +0100, David Hrbáč wrote:
Charlie Brady napsal(a):
Is there anything we can do to help? It seems unfortunate that progress on this project might stop if one person goes on a honeymoon and another disappears.
Hi, I'm also prepared to lend a helping hand. I consider the state not enough for "enterprise community distro".
Agreed - shades of the WhiteBox single-string developer model come to mind. OTOH, managing a team approach has its own overhead - sometimes it's easier to do-it-yourself.
I have quite a lot of experience building packages from assorted SRPMs for local use - would be glad to pitch in if help is desired, and as "real life" permits. In any case, efforts of the core team/developers are much appreciated.
Phil
On 02/16/2009 09:34 PM, Phil Schaffner wrote:
On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 10:25 +0100, David Hrbáč wrote:
Charlie Brady napsal(a):
Is there anything we can do to help? It seems unfortunate that progress on this project might stop if one person goes on a honeymoon and another disappears.
Hi, I'm also prepared to lend a helping hand. I consider the state not enough for "enterprise community distro".
Agreed - shades of the WhiteBox single-string developer model come to mind. OTOH, managing a team approach has its own overhead - sometimes it's easier to do-it-yourself.
I have quite a lot of experience building packages from assorted SRPMs for local use - would be glad to pitch in if help is desired, and as "real life" permits. In any case, efforts of the core team/developers are much appreciated.
There are several people with relevant experience around, some of them being for quite sometime involved in the project. I am sure that a cry for help will not get unnoticed, would such a need arise :)
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
There are several people with relevant experience around, some of them being for quite sometime involved in the project. I am sure that a cry for help will not get unnoticed, would such a need arise :)
There is a fine line the project walks between the various roles which members of the core CentOS team assume over time.
As it happens this time (although the binaries were reported as built), they did not get staged and spun where the remaining folks with admin rights could take the next steps needed for some QA and release of testing ISOs as we had planned and blocked out.
It happened. In polling the other members not absent last week, I think we are of a mind that we will not take steps to compound one delay with a workaround which may impair the value of work already done by a temporarily absent team member -- more than a mere duplication of the build effort is at issue here [easy enough with one off local 'leaf' updates, and really not that hard in more the general case; just laborious -- also the solution paths taken can introduce differing items to bugfix for a general release]. I am loathe to possibly break that absent member's workflow.
We are aware of the delay, and will take some steps at improving the chokepoints identified this go round, just as we do after every point release.
I wish I had an exact date to offer for a final release, and it may be that we decide to expose a 'rough edges' archive for those who 'cannot wait' to pick and choose updates from. As I understand it, some information we need to talk through such an alternative in the update process 1s supposed to surface later this week
-- Russ herrold
Hi,
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 10:34:54PM +0100, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
Axel Thimm wrote:
just a question on whether there is a known ETA for it. The reason I'm asking is that I accidentially removed some 5.2. kernel support from ATrpms (not for the 5.2 plus kernels, just the vendor ones) and if 5.3 would take longer I would rebuild the erased bits. Otherwise I would ask the users to wait for a couple of days.
There is still no ETA because QA has not yet started (packages were not pushed to the QA tree). We're still waiting for Karanbir to come back from his honeymoon and/or Johnny to reappear ... so maybe you'd better continue providing support for the 5.2 kernels. But it's up to you of course ;-)
ah, these are wonderful news! Congratulations and a happy honeymoon to you, Karanbir!
I'll fire up support for 5.2. ;)
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 7:20 AM, Yogesh Sharma ysharma@catprosystems.com wrote:
5.3 ETA Yet ?
Still when it is ready, but I would say that in 2 weeks from now it should be fairly ready.
Is this one person show ?
Definitely not, the QA is currently testing.
Regards, Tim
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Tim Verhoeven tim.verhoeven.be@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 7:20 AM, Yogesh Sharma
Is this one person show ?
Definitely not, the QA is currently testing.
Where does QA take place? Pointers to how to participate?
On 02/28/09 04:42, Gianluca Sforna wrote:
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Tim Verhoeven tim.verhoeven.be@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 7:20 AM, Yogesh Sharma
Is this one person show ?
Definitely not, the QA is currently testing.
Where does QA take place? Pointers to how to participate?
Can we have an update on CentOS Main page about how 5.3 release is progressing ?
Good Morning,
Can we have an update on CentOS Main page about how 5.3 release is progressing ?
You can listen to twitter:
Best Regards Marcus
On 2/28/2009 1:20 AM, Yogesh Sharma wrote:
Hi
5.3 ETA Yet ?
Is this one person show ?
Thanks YS _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
one person show? try go searching the forums on centos.org before you make a fool of yourself again. If you don't like the pace of development..how about you pitch in instead of being asinine?
On Sat, 2009-02-28 at 19:42 -0500, William Warren wrote:
On 2/28/2009 1:20 AM, Yogesh Sharma wrote:
Hi
5.3 ETA Yet ?
Is this one person show ?
Thanks YS _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
one person show? try go searching the forums on centos.org before you make a fool of yourself again. If you don't like the pace of development..how about you pitch in instead of being asinine?
Calm down. No need to be so upset.
-sv
On 02/28/09 16:42, William Warren wrote:
On 2/28/2009 1:20 AM, Yogesh Sharma wrote:
Hi
5.3 ETA Yet ?
Is this one person show ?
Thanks YS _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
one person show? try go searching the forums on centos.org before you make a fool of yourself again. If you don't like the pace of development..how about you pitch in instead of being asinine? _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
What is it that makes you so upset ? Earlier posts wrote "About Honeymoon" etc. If someone says it is "one person show" to release CentOS, I am sure that you will see lot of support ready to pitch in.
one person show? try go searching the forums on centos.org before you make a fool of yourself again. If you don't like the pace of development..how about you pitch in instead of being asinine? _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
What is it that makes you so upset ? Earlier posts wrote "About Honeymoon" etc. If someone says it is "one person show" to release CentOS, I am sure that you will see lot of support ready to pitch in.
The "honeymoon" info you are speaking about was a one time glitch in the build process that was only exposed when one developer was busy. It has probably been corrected and shouldn't happen again.
Usually the developers get irritated, and rightly so, about people hounding them for a new release of software they will not pay for, or will not contribute toward.
A bunch of posts of "are we there yet" just make things worse.
Anybody that is so impatient that they have to bug the devels should just pony up for a RHEL subscription. This is like fine wine, and it takes time to get it right. You would all be angry if they released too fast and a glaring bug surfaces and does some damage to your data or reputations, so patience is the best thing.
On 03/02/09 08:27, Scott Silva wrote:
Usually the developers get irritated, and rightly so, about people hounding them for a new release of software they will not pay for, or will not contribute toward.
A bunch of posts of "are we there yet" just make things worse.
Anybody that is so impatient that they have to bug the devels should just pony up for a RHEL subscription. This is like fine wine, and it takes time to get it right. You would all be angry if they released too fast and a glaring bug surfaces and does some damage to your data or reputations, so patience is the best thing.
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
I agree with your comments at the same time if some information about progress can be published or links can be published on centos.org website will help others to understand and not whine about it or keep posting "are we there yet". I am no where in demand of new version but a humble to keep everyone updated.
Thanks
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 12:40:14PM -0800, Yogesh Sharma wrote:
On 03/02/09 08:27, Scott Silva wrote:
Usually the developers get irritated, and rightly so, about people hounding them for a new release of software they will not pay for, or will not contribute toward.
A bunch of posts of "are we there yet" just make things worse.
Anybody that is so impatient that they have to bug the devels should just pony up for a RHEL subscription. This is like fine wine, and it takes time to get it right. You would all be angry if they released too fast and a glaring bug surfaces and does some damage to your data or reputations, so patience is the best thing.
I agree with your comments at the same time if some information about progress can be published or links can be published on centos.org website will help others to understand and not whine about it or keep posting "are we there yet". I am no where in demand of new version but a humble to keep everyone updated.
I think there was an identi.ca or some other twitter'ish feed giving the latest updates of progress on 5.3 if I'm not mistaken.
It might be nice for someone not as involved with the technical side of packaging up the system and actually doing the QA to be designated as a "PR" person of sorts who could keep tabs on internal progress and post periodic updates to the mailing list for people. Definitely natural that people should be curious without necessarily wanting to berate people for not getting it done "fast enough" :)
We all definitely appreciate the work of the CentOS team btw!
Ray
Ray Van Dolson wrote:
It might be nice for someone not as involved with the technical side of packaging up the system and actually doing the QA to be designated as a "PR" person of sorts who could keep tabs on internal progress and post periodic updates to the mailing list for people.
You mean like this:
http://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=18223&forum=3...
It's only had 22,000 views so I'm not sure how you came to miss it ;)
"When will CentOS 5.3 be out" also gives the top 4 hits on google.
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 10:30:41PM +0000, Ned Slider wrote:
Ray Van Dolson wrote:
It might be nice for someone not as involved with the technical side of packaging up the system and actually doing the QA to be designated as a "PR" person of sorts who could keep tabs on internal progress and post periodic updates to the mailing list for people.
You mean like this:
http://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=18223&forum=3...
It's only had 22,000 views so I'm not sure how you came to miss it ;)
"When will CentOS 5.3 be out" also gives the top 4 hits on google.
Pretty easily since I don't ever follow the forums. :-) (Nor have I asked when CentOS 5.3 will be out either ;-)
Ray
Dne 1.3.2009 1:42, William Warren napsal(a):
On 2/28/2009 1:20 AM, Yogesh Sharma wrote:
Hi
5.3 ETA Yet ?
Is this one person show ?
one person show? try go searching the forums on centos.org before you make a fool of yourself again. If you don't like the pace of development..how about you pitch in instead of being asinine?
I would be glad if the CentOS team be a little bit community-oriented. I saw posts here about "soon", then "no QA yet" etc. This leads to me like prominent show only and not community project.
Please ask for help if you are unable to proceed now, soon and quickly. We don't want to steal your credit. We want to feel more safe, less dependent upon free time of few "core" team members and not be pushed into the dark (dont't ask, wait until we are ready, we don't want you know about progress etc).
We still do not have security update for the kernel even 5.2.z release is out (2009-02-24). This is extremely pitty as we are able to help but we are not supposed to (as we can read here). And we are vulnerable (marked as Important)...
https://www.redhat.com/archives/enterprise-watch-list/2009-February/msg00013...
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 7:08 AM, Milan Keršláger milan.kerslager@pslib.cz wrote:
I would be glad if the CentOS team be a little bit community-oriented. I saw posts here about "soon", then "no QA yet" etc. This leads to me like prominent show only and not community project.
What I gathered from this thread is that CentOS actually _is_ a community project, but the community driving it surely is not using centos-devel as a communication medium.
Instead, i've read the forums are used for that purpose (though I can't confirm or deny this assumption, as I have absolutely no time to check forums of any kind). Additionally, I saw several replies to the "ETA" question stating the packages are ready, but waiting on QA.
Though, I can't easily find info what QA means in CentOS, who is involved in QA, how to help with QA...
Milan Keršláger wrote:
We still do not have security update for the kernel even 5.2.z release is out (2009-02-24). This is extremely pitty as we are able to help but we are not supposed to (as we can read here). And we are vulnerable (marked as Important)...
https://www.redhat.com/archives/enterprise-watch-list/2009-February/msg00013...
iirc, there was talk about this - and the decision was to not do the z-series at all. So I wont be holding my breath if I was you on that one :)
- KB
Karanbir Singh wrote:
Milan Ker�l�ger wrote:
We still do not have security update for the kernel even 5.2.z release is out (2009-02-24). This is extremely pitty as we are able to help but we are not supposed to (as we can read here). And we are vulnerable (marked as Important)...
https://www.redhat.com/archives/enterprise-watch-list/2009-February/msg00013...
iirc, there was talk about this - and the decision was to not do the z-series at all. So I wont be holding my breath if I was you on that one :)
Eh? Who said "z-series?"
On Fri, 2009-03-06 at 09:46 +0900, John Summerfield wrote:
Karanbir Singh wrote:
Milan Ker�l�ger wrote:
We still do not have security update for the kernel even 5.2.z release
^^^^^
is out (2009-02-24). This is extremely pitty as we are able to help but we are not supposed to (as we can read here). And we are vulnerable (marked as Important)...
https://www.redhat.com/archives/enterprise-watch-list/2009-February/msg00013...
"2. Relevant releases/architectures:
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (v. 5.2.z server) - i386, ia64, noarch, ppc, s390x, x86_64"
Eh? Who said "z-series?"
The OP - not that he was expecting it for CentOS, just pointing out our shortcomings. :-P
Cheers, Phil
Phil Schaffner wrote:
On Thu, 2009-03-05 at 21:05 -0500, Phil Schaffner wrote: ...
The OP - not that he was expecting it for CentOS, just pointing out our shortcomings. :-P
s/OP/Milan/ :-/
I didn't take that to mean z-series because _everyone_ knows CentOS doesn't have CentOS5 for them.
I did a little checking, and I don't see why Milan would be asking about zSeries. OTOH, if this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Milan_Kerslager is the same person, he doesn't even know where he works:-) so we shouldn't be surprised at anything he asks.
On Sun, 8 Mar 2009, John Summerfield wrote:
Phil Schaffner wrote:
On Thu, 2009-03-05 at 21:05 -0500, Phil Schaffner wrote: ...
The OP - not that he was expecting it for CentOS, just pointing out our shortcomings. :-P
s/OP/Milan/ :-/
I didn't take that to mean z-series because _everyone_ knows CentOS doesn't have CentOS5 for them.
With z-series they meant Extended Update Support (EUS). To avoid any confusion I guess we should coin the term EUS too.
More information here:
http://www.press.redhat.com/2008/12/18/red-hat-increases-service-levels-and-...
Milan Keršláger wrote: ...
We still do not have security update for the kernel even 5.2.z release is out (2009-02-24). This is extremely pitty as we are able to help but we are not supposed to (as we can read here). And we are vulnerable (marked as Important)...
https://www.redhat.com/archives/enterprise-watch-list/2009-February/msg00013...
Not an official release, but to help address the security issue community member Alan Bartlett has made some pre-release kernels available:
http://centos.toracat.org/ajb/tmp/kernels/ http://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=18733&forum=3... http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2009-February/072555.html
Phil