On Mon, 16 May 2011, Ron Blizzard wrote: > On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Dag Wieers <dag at wieers.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 12 May 2011, Johnny Hughes wrote: > >>> The ZERO release is always going to take longer than the others. >> >> Past numbers debunks this myth: >> >> CentOS 4.0 took 23 days >> >> CentOS 5.0 took 28 days >> >> CentOS 6.0 is not released after 6 months. > > Why do you snip the explanations and ignore the arguments contained in > the text you snipped? Why no mention of the time it took to get 3.1 > (not 3.0) out the door? CentOS 3.0 was not released because the project was still in its infancy (cAos project). I don't think it makes sense to even use it as a point of reference (unless maybe to argue for a direct CentOS 6.1 release). But that still makes Johnny's statement false by a large margin. "The ZERO release is always going to take longer than the others." Also the whole explanation does not provide any reasoning why CentOS 5.6 took 3 months. The QA team is not allowed to speak up or provide feedback, or they could loose their 'privilege'. Sure CentOS 6.0 is a different beast, but CentOS 6.0 was delayed in favor of CentOS 5.6. So again, why would CentOS 6.1 be released quicker if CentOS 5.6 has a well-known process and non of the issues Johnny was pointing at ? My question was very specific though. > Why constantly cast CentOS in the darkest possible light? I don't think that's what I am doing. I commended Johnny for his very quick CentOS 4.9 release, but I honestly can not praise a release that is 3 months or 6 months late (with no transparency to what is going on or how we could help). But if anything brought up wouldn't be ignored or obfuscated, CentOS communication would be a lot more honest, and threads would be a lot shorter. It's because the discussion is being side-tracked that they are becoming larger and the essence is being repeated. There was a recent thread on centos-devel which clearly demonstrated this. It took a long thread and real worls examples for the CentOS developers to finally acknowledge there was a problem, and acknowledge it could be fixed for CentOS 6. This thread could be 4 posts long if the response wouldn't be defensive by default. (And just like this thread, I did not start it either and am hardly the largest contributor to the thread) -- -- dag wieers, dag at wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- dagit linux solutions, info at dagit.net, http://dagit.net/ [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]