On 05/16/2011 02:44 AM, Dag Wieers wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2011, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 05/12/2011 10:09 AM, Craig White wrote:
On May 12, 2011, at 2:05 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Mark Bradbury mark.bradbury@gmail.com wrote:
> Do you expect the C6.0 -> C6.1 differences to be more complex, or less > complex than the C5.5 -> C5.6 differences ? > > And given that C5.6 took 3 months, are there any reasons why C6.1 would > take no more than 1 month ?
Get over yourself Dag ... for goodness sake.
Why? seems like a valid point to me.
But at that time there should only be one point release on the table, instead of two point releases and one major release. Is everyone forgetting that 4.9, 5.6 and 6.0 were all out at the same time?
2 months elapsed from release of 6.0 before 5.6 and more than another month before 4.9
Hardly qualifies at the same time unless you consider 3 months to be essentially the same time.
The ZERO release is always going to take longer than the others.
Past numbers debunks this myth:
CentOS 4.0 took 23 days CentOS 5.0 took 28 days CentOS 6.0 is not released after 6 months.While eg.
CentOS 4.8 took 3 months CentOS 5.6 took 3 monthsSee also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CentOS
Yes, and I told you why that is ... upstream had good beta/rc programs for those c4.0 and c5.0. The releases were built entirely on the beta's ... the build environment was good.
For 3.0 and 6.0, we had to invent a new build system and had to host it on a different OS. They did not build it on the beta/rc.
It will be released when it is released, if you don't like it then leave.