[CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)

Wed May 18 10:05:20 UTC 2011
Ljubomir Ljubojevic <office at plnet.rs>

Tom H wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 7:45 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic <office at plnet.rs> wrote:
>> Gordon Messmer wrote:
>>> On 05/15/2011 06:10 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>>>> Where is Ubuntu telling people exactly where they stand on producing a
>>>> their new releases.
>>>> What about Red Hat ... how about Fedora.
>>> I don't know about Ubuntu, I don't use it.
>>> Fedora, on the other hand publishes their schedule:
>>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/15/Schedule
>>> And the release life cycle:
>>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Life_Cycle
>>> And their release criteria:
>>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/ReleaseCriteria
>>> And release engineering documentation, including the names of
>>> responsible persons and directions for getting involved:
>>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ReleaseEngineering
>>> And standard operating procedures:
>>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ReleaseEngineering/SOP
>>> The release criteria includes a Bugzilla list for a release blocker bug
>>> which shows users what issues currently need to be resolved before the
>>> release.  Users are very well informed about the state of the project.
>>> Fedora uses Koji to build packages.  Users can view build logs in the
>>> Koji interface as well.
>>> After building packages, maintainers push to Bodhi, where users can test
>>> the package and indicate success or failure before the package is
>>> finally published.
>>> If CentOS were run even remotely like Fedora, these discussions wouldn't
>>> come up.
>> There is no way that CentOS or any other REBUILD project can be run as
>> DEVELOPMENT project where you can build as you like. Scan both mailing
>> lists few months back where those differences were thoroughly explained.
> Look at the above. It was Johnny H who brought up the other
> distributions when he should've only chosen to compare CentOS to SL,
> by your standards. Whatever their reasons, the CentOS developers don't
> want to publish that information. Users can ask (as many have) but
> it's the decision of the developers and that's it. Bringing it up day
> after day isn't particularly productive but those who do so are free
> to do so - and their motives shouldn't be assumed to be negative. For
> those who'd like to see that policy change, bringing it up from time
> to time (once a year for example) might be worthwhile.

Tom, you are way off the point I was making. RHEL, Fedora, Debian, 
Ubuntu, all other distro's are *developed* and can change at any time. 
You can track changes, contribute patches and track progress (if you 
have access). Anything you build at any point of time is exactly what 
you want. How ever you compile it, what you wanted is what you got.

CentOS is *recreating* RHEL, and must/wants to make it *exactly* like 
RHEL is, as much as possible. There is no development (for 90-95% of the 
packages) to patch contributions, no "we are changing our build 
environment for this release because this one is better". You are 
reverse engineering complete product. All of this was, at length, 
discussed on this or devel list, look it up if you can not wrap your 
head around this concept/problem.