On 05/04/11 01:29, John R. Dennison wrote: > On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 07:22:43PM -0400, Brian Mathis wrote: >> >> All that is needed to stop the weekly explosions are some regular >> updates about the process. Something like "Working on xyz package but >> ran into this problem. Still have to look at packages abc and def" >> would more than satisfy a vast majority of people complaining here. >> It's mind boggling that the project just doesn't seem to understand >> that. > > Couple questions for you, if you wouldn't mind? > > Do you complain to Redhat about similar issues? Do you complain > to your sales rep about when the next release is going to drop, > or what the hold-up on a release is? > > Assuming that you're a customer you would be quite dissatisfied > with their reply, or to be more accurate, their lack of a reply. > > Why must CentOS be held to a different set of standards than the > upstream? Redhat posts NO status updates and publishes NO > timelines but yet CentOS gets no end of grief over their lack of > the same. Maybe because CentOS and Red Hat are different entities with different goals? Maybe that Red Hat has a much bigger responsibility for their stock holders and that any public exposure of RHEL related things might impact the market speculations which again could hurt the stock price.... you probably get the point ... fact is: CentOS do not have such constraints, being a community project. And the parts where Red Hat is and can be open about the development phase is in Fedora. Most of you know by now that RHEL6 is based on a Fedora 12/13 base. > I do personally wish that there would be more status updates > from TPTB but to be demanding of more updates is ridiculous. I don't interpret it as a demand, more like a wish for a more open development process and progress - which is not a unreasonable request for a community project. There is nothing bad about voicing this. And I am convinced Brian is correct about that these regular explosions threads with "when does it come" would be considerably reduced with more transparency in the development process. kind regards, David Sommerseth