On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Drew drew.kay@gmail.com wrote:

I don't believe you can. My understanding is that CentOS' QA builds are internal to the team and those aren't released to the general public.

The only reason we know about them is because of changes made by TPTB to improve transparency & openness into the state of the build process, the hope being that by feeding the community information as needed, they can avoid the recent flame-wars.

Which is an excellent step forward, hopefully one of many.

As to the person asking to sync, if you wait a short while you'll be able to sync off the public mirrors soon enough.

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 2:06 PM, aurfalien@gmail.com wrote:

Me thinks its awesome for the updates, you have no idea how many times I've had to defend Centos on other lists.

Kooks saying the project is dead, Dags departure from the dev list is the end, blah blah blah.  Just shear nonsense.

Please don't read into my comment of "good move forward" to much. I still think the CentOS project has allot of growing to do and I disagree with more things then I agree with at this point. I just see any step forward into transparency is a good thing, however I think they could use a good hard look at the Fedora and Debian projects. Fedora and Debian in my opinion are both superior to the way CentOS opens community development. Having one developer doing all the packaging (Johnny) is a waste of resources and intelligence. A simple repository where we can all contribute to the build cycle would be far more beneficial in the long run for the project. However, they are currently worried about people "stealing" their work and starting their own rebuilds of RHEL, which if that was going to happen it would have already. The SL team opens their build process and we can get close enough with Fedora to make a good start.

Some of the developer paranoia needs to go, and more community involvement needs to happen still. However the QA system is a good step forward and like I said, hopefully the first of many over the next few years.

On 5/26/2011 11:50 AM Steven Crothers spake the following:

<snip> > more beneficial in the long run for the project. However, they are > currently worried about people "stealing" their work and starting > their own rebuilds of RHEL, which if that was going to happen it > would have already. The SL team opens their build process and we > can get close enough with Fedora to make a good start.

I cannot comment on what motivates another's actions. However, I doubt very much that worrying about the theft of publicly available material weighs heavily on any rational mind. There is evidently some degree of dysfunction present in this project's administration. But insofar as to why and whether it is significantly more or less than any other FOSS project of similar scope seems a matter of opinion rather than fact.

I suspect that, like many of us, the primary concern of the present project team is the preservation of their reputations and integrity of the product they produce.

CentOS is a top flight project that hews to a fixed party line, upstream compatibility. I can understand why the present maintainers might be a little reluctant to open wide the doors to sundry 'volunteers', some of whom just might not be as committed to that ideal and whose contributions in the end might prove more trouble than worth.

For my part, all I ever asked for was a regular update as to where things were at, not when they would be finished. And that seems, at long last, to be happening. Which I take to be a good thing.

Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote:

Steven Crothers wrote:

...

opens community development. Having one developer doing all the packaging (Johnny) is a waste of resources and intelligence. A simple

oh no! please don't anybody reply, despite gross inaccuracies such as that quoted above, and turn this into another 100-post flamewar...

pretty please?

sorry, to late for that...

Ljubomir

Steven Crothers wrote:

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 2:06 PM, aurfalien@gmail.com wrote:

...

Me thinks its awesome for the updates, you have no idea how many times I've had to defend Centos on other lists.

Kooks saying the project is dead, Dags departure from the dev list is the end, blah blah blah. Just shear nonsense.

Please don't read into my comment of "good move forward" to much. I still think the CentOS project has allot of growing to do and I disagree with more things then I agree with at this point. I just see any step forward into transparency is a good thing, however I think they could use a good hard look at the Fedora and Debian projects. Fedora and Debian in my opinion are both superior to the way CentOS opens community development. Having one developer doing all the packaging (Johnny) is a waste of resources and intelligence. A simple repository where we can all contribute to the build cycle would be far more beneficial in the long run for the project. However, they are currently worried about people "stealing" their work and starting their own rebuilds of RHEL, which if that was going to happen it would have already. The SL team opens their build process and we can get close enough with Fedora to make a good start.

Some of the developer paranoia needs to go, and more community involvement needs to happen still. However the QA system is a good step forward and like I said, hopefully the first of many over the next few years.

Hmm. Steven, what part of "rebuilding, not developing" fact are you having problems with?

How would that happen in your mind? Please give us detail instruction.

Guys prepare all srpms and ask you/us/anybody to help them. Then you/us/anybody start fiddling with it and create huge chatter about what works and what not. Keep in mind that you are NOT allowed to change srpms, just building environment!!!.

What happens when you take responsibility for certain package and then have no time for it? Will all other rebuilders be forced to wait for you? Will rebuilding queues be halted until we all agree is something is correctly done, or until we argue if one of us thinks that other one is not competent? Who will take precedence? Will core dev team become referees?

Or if you think we should all have simultaneous access to the same packages, who will volunteer to build simultaneous access system? And how you intend to solve conflicts?

And this issues are just from the top of my head while I have other problems on my mind.

Please answer this in detail, not just shrug it off and say "I do not know" or "That is not the point".

Ljubomir