On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 11:56:30PM -0600, Hubert Bahr wrote: > > Painful is fedora, but hardware/new apps with 5 not filling the void. > Upstream recognizes the loss to other vendors so released 6.0 well > before 5.6 although 5.6 is much easier. I will give you the hardware edge here as it's a valid argument; but the I still maintain that most "modern" userland functionality can be had by appropriate use of third-party vetted repos. > Agreed but updates full fill the major majority of the needs for the > current installs. I never advocated dropping 5 just keeping the > release order in the same sequence as upstream. C6 is already quite late, for various definitions of "late"; moving it back however much more to get 5.6 dealt with and out the door and off the dev's plates isn't going to make or break it for most I wouldn't think. Speaking for myself, I want 5.6 and have little use for 6 at the present time. 5.6+security rollups is a much higher priority for myself and my clients. > This statement was asinine since nobody expects systems "satisfied" by > C5 to switch. But do not expect those dissatisfied by C5 to wait while > you switch the release order of the upstream vendor. Those that aren't satisfied are free to purchase appropriate upstream entitlements :) John -- We only think when we are confronted with problems. -- John Dewey (1859-1952), American philosopher, educator -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20110114/a3360ea1/attachment-0007.sig>