[CentOS-devel] CentOS-devel Digest, Vol 77, Issue 6

Sun Jul 10 04:31:05 UTC 2011
R P Herrold <herrold at owlriver.com>

On Sun, 10 Jul 2011, Yury V. Zaytsev wrote:

> All I am saying is that the leak issue came up at latest around Sat, 09
> Jul 2011 00:00:00 UTC. Soon enough started the speculations on why this
> is an issue at all and how come greedy CentOS developers don't want to
> share their stuff etc.

... I do not know where 'greedy' came from, but ...

> Your (helpful!) answer came (technically) a day later. This is a totally
> reasonable response time under normal circumstances, but I don't think
> this is the case here.

By what strange sense of entitlement is any response within 24 
clock hours, and falling into a weekend, untimely?  Have you a 
SLA?  This is NOT a commercial product no matter how much some 
people want to wish for that magical pony.  If won wants 
deterministic SLA times, go buy such from a person selling 

But, in fact, the topic of 'leaking mirrors' had already been 
addressed, ...

> Yes, exactly, that's what I'm telling you. To my mind it would be of
> help, if this message was (1) posted earlier and (2) looked more like
> "Attention! The CentOS 6 ISOs on the mirrors right now might not have
> the final content yet! Please wait until the release is officially
> announced to avoid unpleasant surprises and report leaking mirrors."

... by this post:

> Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 14:14:10 -0400 (EDT)
> From: R P Herrold <herrold at owlriver.com>
> To: CentOS mailing list <centos at centos.org>
> The implicit statement being that a mirror operator could 
> _jump the gun_ on the official release, and 'have 'the 
> release early.  Indeed, in the past some (former) mirror 
> operators released 'early samples' and posted such URLs ... 
> and one of the CD vendors released a non-officially released 
> ISO, that they (assumedly) then had to recall and replace

> This turned out to be ill-considered, because the release 
> process is not official until announced, and in one of the 
> past releases, we needed to replace a few files 'at the last 
> minute'

That is, a day BEFORE your claimed onset of the leak, we 
re-iterated that 'the release process is not official until 
announced'.  No threats, as none are credible, but rather just 
pointing out the facts yet again

The same thing we've said every time.  Over and over again

Nothing is going to STOP people who 'NEED' the 'LATEST AND 
GREATEST' from trying to bend the rules to get at such content 
early.  Threatening or taking punitive acts toward public 
mirrors who do not want to follow the rules won't work

There is no reason for the CentOS team to address the matter, 
other than to point out that if the MD5SUMs do not match, it 
is not CentOS matter, and will not be supported in CentOS 
forums by people from the CentOS team

Third parties who seem to love to hear themselves talk, and 
have to have the last word, have all but driven out on topic 
matter on the CentOS mailing lists.  It is a shame, and I hope 
that a person who looks at their sent email and finds that 
they have made more than four in a day, or thirty in a week, 
ask their self:
 	Do I _really_ need to post this?
because the noise level of off topic cr*p in recent weeks has 
been killing

-- Russ herrold