Karanbir Singh <mail-lists at ...> writes: > > Hi, > > On 07/09/2011 05:23 PM, Edson - PMSS wrote: > > I really like CentOS, but it is undeniable the delay in the release of > > version 6.0. > > yes, we all clearly take that on board - I hope the changes we are > bringing in helps clear that, and prevent this sort of a situation. But > there are still lots of places for improvements, and over the next few > months lets try and address all of those. > > - KB > Because I needed the 6.0 versions of dhcpd and named for some IPv6 testing I was doing, I grabbed Scientific Linux 6.0 right after it was released. I also signed up for the SL mailing list. A couple of weeks ago (June 20th or so) the SL folks announced the availability of SL 5.6. I would interpret this as the SL team chose to work on 6.0 and left 5.6 for later while the CentOS team worked on 5.6 and left 6.0 for later. I have no insight into what level of support the SL folks get from their sponsoring organization (CERN and Fermilab) but as far as I'm concerned getting the two releases out (5.6 and 6.0) was a dead heat between the two distributions. This is especially true if you consider that the SL team had the benefit of the CentOS team's experience with 5.6. I mention this because it indicates to me that the CentOS process isn't broken. On the other hand, if not getting 5.6 and 6.0 out sooner gets more people involved in helping, it may have long term benefits. These are just my observations on two different teams working to release the same two releases. Carefully consider what changes you make to the release process. Oh yeah, great job guys and, yes, I'll be moving the SL 6 boxes and VMs back to CentOS as time allows mainly because the community just isn't there for SL (most days the mailing list only has a dozen or so posts; most of them not very technical). Cheers, Dave