[CentOS-devel] progress?

Thu Feb 24 17:11:09 UTC 2011
Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org>

On 02/24/2011 10:59 AM, Thomas Bendler wrote:
> 2011/2/23 Karanbir Singh <mail-lists at karan.org
> <mailto:mail-lists at karan.org>>
>     On 02/22/2011 08:26 PM, Thomas Bendler wrote:
>     > And to make my point clear, I don't believe it is rocket science to
>     > get such a release cycle established if _more_ skilled people are
>     > involved in the release creation (beyond translation work).
>     I do believe you dont know what you are talking about, have done no
>     research or aware of the CentOS process. You seem to be going on and on
>     about getting more eyes on the ball, which is exactly what we attempted
>     to do last year, and the option is still open.
> Funny to know that I don't know what I'm talking about but maybe you can
> be more specific. As I already pointed out in another mail, for me it
> look like that having more than one release at the same time (4.9, 5.6
> and 6) result in a major slow down of release cycle time. This means for
> me, the project isn't able to scale (correct me if I'm wrong). When the
> project can't scale it is under normal circumstances a matter of human
> resources or technical boundaries. As you told me already in December,
> it is not a technical problem. So from my point of view it could _only_
> be a matter of human resources in terms that not enough people working
> on the release (again, correct me if I'm wrong). To offer my help I
> asked already in December, please provide a list of packages that don't
> compile so that people that are willing to help can help getting this
> packages compiled (i.e. with differnet mock settings or whatever needed
> to get this compiled). If the recompile isn't possible because the SRPM
> is broken they can submit Bugreports to RH. But I only saw such a list
> on the SL website
> (https://www.scientificlinux.org/distributions/6x/build/problembyrpm),
> not on the CentOS website.
> What I heard in the meantime is that CentOS has a policy that the next
> release must be compiled with CentOS what I think is a bit funny simply
> because RedHat don't use a build environment based in RedHat (I read an
> article in the press indicating that they use FC12 koji with some FC13,
> FC14 backports, but I can't proof this). But the point is still, if you
> and your team allow skilled people to support you in the release
> creation (not by signing packages or so, but to work out open items,
> problems, whatsoever) it is something that the CentOS project will
> benefit, specially if you look at the mails currently on the list, most
> mails are from the same type, when is CentOS X.X released and why isn't
> it already released.

Why isn't SL released yet ... why did Oracle only release it last week
... because it takes time and it is hard.

If you want to use CentOS, feel free to use it.  If you don't, feel free
to leave.

-------------- 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/20110224/a56bdb93/attachment-0005.sig>