[CentOS-devel] CentOS-4.9 SRPMS

Sun Feb 20 00:56:34 UTC 2011
Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org>

On 02/19/2011 06:44 PM, DJA wrote:
> On 02/19/2011 03:58 PM, John R. Dennison wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 03:27:56PM -0800, Richard McClellan wrote:
>>> 1. Johnny Hughes, you would do CentOS well to mind your words. Or
>>> better yet, don't respond to threads asking about the process or
>>> release status.  Instead, take half a day and write up a description
>>> of it.
>> 	He already went over the build process in more than enough
>> 	detail to permit someone outside the project to do so.
> I think Mr. McClellan was suggesting a bit more documentation on the 
> website. Not everyone interested in CentOS is necessarily going to 
> subscribe to this list. It was a reasonable suggestion in that context.
>>> 2. The CentOS process is opaque and secretive. It may indeed be very
>>> complex with justifiable restrictions over who can contribute at what
>>> level, but the process should be described somewhere. This would also
>>> help impartial observers/users of CentOS understand why things take as
>>> long as they do. The process and team appear to be dysfunctional to
>>> the point that using CentOS may be a risk.
>> 	Secretive?  Just today there have been postings with enough
>> 	information to permit someone familiar with development
>> 	processes in general to do their own build.  Do you need
>> 	something along the lines of "Step 1: Collect and download to a
>> 	staging area the necessary source RPMs from upstream."
>> 	hand-holding?
> Again, easily-gotten docs on the subject (aside from a dev list) would 
> be very helpful and maybe cut down on at least some of the dialog here 
> in the last couple of days (some of it unnecessarily heated).
>>> 3. A lot of people are frustrated with the level and type of
>>> communication from the CentOS inner circle. Increasing the level of
>>> communication--including release status--and politeness would be good
>>> for CentOS.
>> 	This is arguably true to some extent, but by no means a
>> 	necessary occurrence.
> As a new subscriber and potentially a new user doing research before 
> implementation, I sincerely hope so.
>>> A few days on this list was enough to give me a fresh interest in
>>> finding an alternative to CentOS.
>> 	I hear Redhat would be happy to sell you a set of support
>> 	subscriptions.  Of course, you would be required to pay for
>> 	them.
> That is a very condescending, specious, and frankly rude reply, and does 
> nothing to further your argument. your work, or the recommendation of 
> your distribution. In any case, I have no doubt that we would not get 
> similar disdain from Redhat to what was a very civil customer comment.
>>> With that I bid you all good luck and thanks for five year of CentOS.
>> 	Please don't let the door get scuffed on your way out :)
> Smiley or not, that was very Eric Cartman of you. I can only hope that 
> such unprofessionalism is not indicative of the quality of either CentOS 
> itself, or of the mindset of its support staff-at-large.
> I have to also question whether deciding to choose to use CentOS is 
> going to come with serious future regrets.

That reply was not from a developer of CentOS ...

-------------- 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/20110219/c68922d8/attachment-0005.sig>