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-0007.sig>