On 4/13/2011 11:55 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote: > > People have a choice. They can use CentOS or they can use something else. Or they can try to convince the project not to follow the Whitebox example of not matching resources to the task. > There is no "time limit" that we would go past where I would allow > people who I do not know and trust to commit items into the CentOS tree. > I have to use this in production and it has to be done correctly. It > does not matter how long it takes if it is done right. No one has suggested any of these things. I don't understand why you keep repeating that as if it were a contradiction. Or why you are so convinced that CentOS could not be both timely and correct. In fact, I thought one of your other postings implied that it was possible. > Whitebox is not, nor was it ever, deployed on 29% of all Linux webserver > servers worldwide. CentOS is ... right now ... deployed on 29% of web > servers on the Internet that use Linux. That is more than RHEL and > Ubuntu combined: > http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/os-linux/all/all OK, if you are going to use that as an example, please tell me how many of those people made that choice knowing that updates were going to be months behind upstream. There's certainly nothing on the project web site to imply that. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com