R P Herrold wrote: > On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Ned Slider wrote: > >> Rather than dumping *even more work* on the core CentOS project (who are >> already clearly struggling to provide even the core distro >> at present), ... > > It may be clear to Ned, but is not the case. > Then we disagree. Others can look and judge for themselves :) > I wish people not in the know would not purport to > characterize CentOS internals, but speculation is a human > trait, I guess > Bingo! That's the whole point Russ - members of the Community don't know what's going on with *their* Community Enterprise OS because there is no dissemination of information. What I *do* "know" is that 5.3 took ~10 weeks to release, and before that 4.7 took ~7 weeks. We are already 6 weeks into the 4.8 release cycle with no news of how it's progressing or when a release is to be expected. Prior to this, update sets typically took ~4 weeks to release. Struggling? Maybe/maybe not. Struggling within a reasonable time frame - depends on your definition of reasonable and time frame I guess. Perhaps this is where we disagree above. Anyway, as I said previously, I would rather see the CentOS Project concentrate on the core product and do a really good job on that (i.e, a move closer to the old 4 week release lag than the current 10 week release lag), and I would much rather see this than effort diluted by taking on a contrib repo. > I would note that from the earliest days of RPMForge, Dag > offered, and indeed granted comit rights to me, which I have > not used. I find it easier to use the bug tracker, and to > send emails to him ... lazy of me, I know, but again human > nature in play > > Additionally I regularly pull, fork, and fix 'broken' RF > packages [for self, or in consulting engagements], and drop > the SRPM's in my personal archive to satisfy GPL source > availability obligations. I've seem parts of my packagings > end up elsewhere which is fine >