On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 1:28 PM, David G. Miller
<dave@davenjudy.org> wrote:
Karanbir Singh <mail-lists@...> writes:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 07/09/2011 05:23 PM, Edson - PMSS wrote:
> > I really like CentOS, but it is undeniable the delay in the release of
> > version 6.0.
>
> yes, we all clearly take that on board - I hope the changes we are
> bringing in helps clear that, and prevent this sort of a situation. But
> there are still lots of places for improvements, and over the next few
> months lets try and address all of those.
>
> - KB
>
Because I needed the 6.0 versions of dhcpd and named for some IPv6 testing I was
doing, I grabbed Scientific Linux 6.0 right after it was released. I also
signed up for the SL mailing list. A couple of weeks ago (June 20th or so) the
SL folks announced the availability of SL 5.6. I would interpret this as the SL
team chose to work on 6.0 and left 5.6 for later while the CentOS team worked on
5.6 and left 6.0 for later.
I have no insight into what level of support the SL folks get from their
sponsoring organization (CERN and Fermilab) but as far as I'm concerned getting
the two releases out (5.6 and 6.0) was a dead heat between the two
distributions. This is especially true if you consider that the SL team had the
benefit of the CentOS team's experience with 5.6. I mention this because it
indicates to me that the CentOS process isn't broken. On the other hand, if not
getting 5.6 and 6.0 out sooner gets more people involved in helping, it may have
long term benefits.
These are just my observations on two different teams working to release the
same two releases. Carefully consider what changes you make to the release
process. Oh yeah, great job guys and, yes, I'll be moving the SL 6 boxes and
VMs back to CentOS as time allows mainly because the community just isn't there
for SL (most days the mailing list only has a dozen or so posts; most of them
not very technical).
Cheers,
Dave