[CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
dag at wieers.com
Mon May 16 09:32:15 UTC 2011
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]
More information about the CentOS