[CentOS-devel] progress?

On 02/20/2011 11:13 AM, Dag Wieers wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2011, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> 
>>> Could I ask a simple question:
>>> When the Centos6 build (for i386 or x86_64) was release / build  at 100%
>>> (or close) ?
>>
>> It might be 2 weeks from now or 2 months from now.  I would like to
>> think it will be closer to 2 weeks, but it will be completed when it
>> gets completed.
> 
> Johnny,
> 
> So it's absolutely normal a CentOS 5.6 release is 10 weeks late and 
> there's no intent to speed up the process to lower the time to do future 
> releases ?

This CVE update (CVE-2010-4527) took 7 weeks to get into the kernel
(Reported Dec 29th, 2010 ... issued 2/16/2011):

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=667615

This one (CVE-2010-4655) took 18 weeks (reported October 11 2010, fixed
in a release on 2/16/2011).

I can find security updates that take more than a year for upstream to
get into just the kernel.  I can find bug fix updates that take well in
excess of a year to make it into the release.

Why do you try to hold CentOS to a different standard?

Yes, I find it perfectly acceptable for it to take what the WIKI says
(4-8 weeks) to release a major point release:

http://wiki.centos.org/FAQ/General/RebuildReleaseProcess

If one wants to get and SLA, they can most certainly obtain one.

> 
> If that is the case, we might want to make that more clear on the wiki, 
> eg. in my CentOS introduction presentation from 2008 we still mention that 
> releases are (up to) 4 weeks behind RHEL.

The wiki has been updated on the page for quoted for some time.

> 
> I don't think most of the users ever expected to be without security 
> updates for 10 weeks or more when choosing CentOS, and that is an 
> important characteristic.
> 

Are they aware that it might take much longer than 10 weeks to get into
RHEL in the first place ... and if so, why is my deadline really tight
but the original deadline open ended?

And as someone else already pointed out, it has been 5, not 10 weeks.


-------------- 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/20110220/62f82039/attachment-0001.sig>