On Mon, 16 Feb 2009, Manuel Wolfshant wrote: > There are several people with relevant experience around, > some of them being for quite sometime involved in the > project. I am sure that a cry for help will not get > unnoticed, would such a need arise :) There is a fine line the project walks between the various roles which members of the core CentOS team assume over time. As it happens this time (although the binaries were reported as built), they did not get staged and spun where the remaining folks with admin rights could take the next steps needed for some QA and release of testing ISOs as we had planned and blocked out. It happened. In polling the other members not absent last week, I think we are of a mind that we will not take steps to compound one delay with a workaround which may impair the value of work already done by a temporarily absent team member -- more than a mere duplication of the build effort is at issue here [easy enough with one off local 'leaf' updates, and really not that hard in more the general case; just laborious -- also the solution paths taken can introduce differing items to bugfix for a general release]. I am loathe to possibly break that absent member's workflow. We are aware of the delay, and will take some steps at improving the chokepoints identified this go round, just as we do after every point release. I wish I had an exact date to offer for a final release, and it may be that we decide to expose a 'rough edges' archive for those who 'cannot wait' to pick and choose updates from. As I understand it, some information we need to talk through such an alternative in the update process 1s supposed to surface later this week -- Russ herrold