[CentOS-devel] progress?

[Johnny Hughes]

On 02/20/2011 06:11 AM, Dag Wieers wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2011, Larry Vaden wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Dag Wieers <dag at wieers.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 19 Feb 2011, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>>>
>>>> For the vast majority of packages, we make no changes.  We rebuild it
>>>> and test it.  If the binary passes the test, we use it.  If the binary
>>>> does not pass the test we troubleshoot and figure out why it does not
>>>> pass the test ... and we change things OUTSIDE the SRPM to fix the
>>>> problem.
>>>
>>> Yes, and those changes are closed.
>>
>> Hi Dag,
>>
>> Help this old former ASR33 operator understand, please:  are you saying
>>
>> 1) the changes aren't called out in the bug report to the upstream
>> -or-
>> 2) the bug reports to the upstream aren't timely
>> -or-
>> 3) your choice of words.
> 
> You cut away the meat of my message and focussed on the least important
> bit, the non-transparency. I am more interested how we can do a better
> job in the future.
> 
> Remind you that we have had the same discussions on this list in the
> past, including the promises that it would be better in the future. And
> here we are again and the situation is worse than it ever was.
> 
> So:
> 
> 4) CentOS is not able to release CentOS 5.6 after 2 months and nobody is
>    allowed to be critical about it.

You call what you are doing NON-CRITICAL?  I think you are not only
allowed, but are being QUITE CRITICAL about it.  I wonder how
understanding and nice YOU would be if I came to YOUR mailing list and
showed the same level of CRITICALNESS towards something there.

> 
>    (Despite the fact that the effort to rebuild CentOS 5.6 packages is a
>    lot easier than CentOS 6.0 which is already 3 months late)
> 
> 5) The same 3 people are responsible for CentOS 4, CentOS 5 and CentOS 6.
>    What's more, the fact that there would be three update releases in 3
>    months was predictable.
> 
> So despite all the automation, QA team, past promises and whatnot, we
> are not doing a better job today and I had hoped at least some people
> would agree instead of denying there's something wrong with the process
> and blaming the non-volunteers/community for even bringing it up.
> 
> And despite what some people may think, I am not _against_ CentOS, in
> fact the only reason why I am bringing it up is because * I * still *
> care !

Thank you for your concern.

Oracle does not have the same issues and they just released their
product.  SL has not released a final version of their 5.6 or 6.0
either.  Maybe you should put this in perspective.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20110220/45b8373d/attachment.sig>