-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 thus Josh Boyer spake: > On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists at karan.org> wrote: >> 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 :) > > As a fairly new subscriber, I've not really found anything technically > wrong with the process. Mostly because I have no idea what the > process is. From what I can tell, the CentOS developers pick up > SRPMS, debrand, "magically" build them somehow, and then publish them > when done. > > There probably isn't anything wrong at all with that, but since it's > not documented anywhere and the buildsystem being used isn't > documented either, it's sort of a big black box. So to me, a more > "open" process could start with simply documenting the actual process, > including the buildsystem and/or build order of the packages. Something like Fedora's koji would be nice: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/index > Maybe > I've missed this somewhere in the wiki already, but if I have it's > because it's hard to find (at least in my looking). > > FWIW, I rather liked the call-for-help on debranding, even if it had > limited participation. I think it's exactly the kind of task that can > be distributed to relative new-comers and might lead to further > participation. > > josh Timo -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFNJHGAfg746kcGBOwRAlJcAJ9urBYdWBVC1UcQ/Q1h/cIfEXaaGwCbBrhy 9cBXYZ5FUuDO5gABNslxcf0= =q3KW -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----