--- Phil Schaffner <Philip.R.Schaffner at NASA.gov> wrote: > 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 ;-) cu roger __________________________________________ RedHat Certified ( RHCE ) Cisco Certified ( CCNA & CCDA ) ____________________________________________________________________________________ Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. http://sims.yahoo.com/