[CentOS-devel] are there any chances to see finished CentOS6 in 2011?

Karanbir Singh mail-lists at karan.org
Wed Jan 5 12:45:48 UTC 2011


On 01/05/2011 11:56 AM, Thomas Bendler wrote:
> the process could be more open, see SL i.e., but regardless how open the

Couple of things worth clearing up:

CentOS is not SL
CentOS and SL target a very different Goal Set ( there is user end 
overlap, which imho is good )

> process is, due to the fact that no alpha, beta whatever relaeases are
> in the wild it is not possible to test the current state, check for

When we asked around for help from people, the *currnet* state of CentOS 
was a bunch of srpms that needed to be looked at for content audits. 
These srpms are widely available. What do you want to do with these 
sources that would imply to you a beta or an alpha state ? as far as I 
am concerned those sources represent the final product pretty much.

>      > Are there any plans to tackle the human bottleneck issues within the
>      > CentOS development process?
>     Absolutely, but tackle them by doing the right thing - and finding
>     people who both (a) know what they are doing, (b) understand the CentOS
>     process and (c) are able to bring a certain trust level to the community
>     of users.
> Why not an open approach.

Can you quantify what you mean by 'open approach' ( basically, what 
steps and what gains those steps would bring about )

>     The aim was to focus people's attention to the upstream beta, better
>     product and that loop etc. We could have started earlier, sure. But now
>     that we have started 2 months back and your own contribution status
>     stays at nil, why are you interested ?
> How and what should be contributed if the normal user didn't even know
> what problems remains?

Problems remain where ? in CentOS or RHEL ? It was RHEL6 that had a 
public beta, for issues that should have been reported against 
bugzilla.r.c; or am I misunderstanding what you said ?

Don't get me wrong, I am well aware of the fact that there are issues 
and situations that need looking at and changing. But lets do the right 
thing rather than just doing something. Going by the popularist current 
mood of people on this list, I think people just want early access to a 
codebase they can start using for their own use rather than actually 
working towards building CentOS-6. Which makes me fear that the only way 
we are going to get C6 out of the door in the next few weeks is by 
clamping up,  talking to the usual-suspects and just going back to the 
CentOS-5 process. And to be honest, I don't really think these 
conversations over the past two months have been wasted; but in the 
grant scheme of things - getting 6.0 out of the door might be a better 
target for now - as long as we can somehow agree that we get back to 
this process engineering immediately after so as to not be in the same 
situation, come 6.1.

Also, failback to the CentOS-5 process isn't necessarily a bad thing - 
we know it works :)

- KB

More information about the CentOS-devel mailing list