[CentOS-devel] Release farkage potential

Fri Sep 7 14:51:36 UTC 2007
Roger Peña <orkcu at yahoo.com>

--- Phil Schaffner <Philip.R.Schaffner at NASA.gov>

> On Fri, 2007-09-07 at 00:36 +0100, Karanbir Singh
> wrote:
> > pushing out each tree, as it is, for upto 3
> sub-release deep is just plain 
> > stupid.
> Don't pull any punches now.  :-)
> Seems it could get to more than 3 sub-releases,
> unless the upstream
> policy is to limit it to the last 3.  Witness 3.9
> and 4.5.
> >  So if anyone has ideas on how we can do this in a
> sane manner, please do 
> > speak up :)
> Well, how about backing up to the basic assumptions
> before suggesting
> solutions.  Just because the upstream with their
> much greater (paid)
> resources seem to be going to a M.N release scheme,
> is CentOS
> constrained to follow precisely in their footsteps? 
> What's wrong with
> keeping the current scheme of following the latest
> release and
> continuing to have M as a pointer to the latest M.N
> tree?  If someone
> REALLY needs the minor release[es] with associated
> updates, they can go
> to the upstream for support; however, I suspect that
> would be a
> relatively rare case.  If the demand is there down
> the road, can always
> re-evaluate the policy.
I agree 100%

but _if_ centos team whant to provide same taste as
uptream but do not have hardware to support it, I
subjest to make a public statement, explaining that
(willing to do but lack of hard) maybe CentOS get an
storage donation to provide that ;-)

> So, am I sane?
I hope you are, because I agree with your criteria ;-)


RedHat Certified ( RHCE )
Cisco Certified ( CCNA & CCDA )

Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.