[CentOS-devel] progress?

Sun Feb 20 12:56:45 UTC 2011
Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org>

On 02/20/2011 06:37 AM, jean-seb wrote:
> Le 20/02/2011 16:31, Johnny Hughes a écrit :
>> 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.
> Hello,
> Could I ask a simple question:
> When the Centos6 build (for i386 or x86_64) was release / build  at 100%
> (or close) ?

If your question is, when will the CentOS6 build for i386 or x86_64 be
released ... and if you want a hard date, well I can not give you one.

It will be released the DAY we get a build that passes all our checks
that I pointed to here:


We will then move it to QA where it will be tested.

Once it is tested (and we fix any issues), it will be released.

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.

I would point out that the original "REAL" CentOS release (version 3.1)
took about 6-7 months, from sometime in October 2003 (when development
started ) until March 19th, 2004 when there was a release.

-------------- 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/20110220/3c3b7b47/attachment-0005.sig>