On 05/12/2011 10:09 AM, Craig White wrote: > > On May 12, 2011, at 2:05 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote: > >> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Mark Bradbury <mark.bradbury at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Do you expect the C6.0 -> C6.1 differences to be more complex, or less >>>>> complex than the C5.5 -> C5.6 differences ? >>>>> >>>>> And given that C5.6 took 3 months, are there any reasons why C6.1 would >>>>> take no more than 1 month ? >>>> >>>> Get over yourself Dag ... for goodness sake. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Why? seems like a valid point to me. >> >> But at that time there should only be one point release on the table, >> instead of two point releases and one major release. Is everyone >> forgetting that 4.9, 5.6 and 6.0 were all out at the same time? > ---- > I think you are confusing overlap with simultaneous. > > • 2011-02-16: Distribution Release: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4.9 > • 2011-01-13: Distribution Release: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.6 > • 2010-11-10: Distribution Release: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 > > 2 months elapsed from release of 6.0 before 5.6 and more than another month before 4.9 > > Hardly qualifies at the same time unless you consider 3 months to be essentially the same time. The ZERO release is always going to take longer than the others. The Original CentOS 3 release did not even have a ZERO release. We didn't finish it until 3.1 had been out for some time and we released 3.1 as our first release. That first release happened (for 3.1) on 3.19.2004: http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2004-March/000015.html The Red Hat 3.0 release happened on October 23, 2003. That is 5 months. The 4.0 release cycle and the 5.0 release cycle was much better because the Beta and RC releases were much closer in time and content to the actual released ISOs and we were able to build the first release version on our beta. This is NOT the case with 6.0. First off, we can not use any of the existing infrastructure to build on because we can not build on a CentOS 4 or CentOS 5 machine because of the changing of MD5SUM in the RPMs themselves. Secondly, the distribution will not build on the Beta (much like the 3.x release and UNLIKE the 4.0 and 5.0 releases). Not only that, but upstream used many "non released" packages to build on ... packages we can not see or get. Now, because of those things and because we choose to stop work on 6.0 to build out 5.6 and 4.9, the 6.0 release is late. We do not need a discussion of how bad CentOS sucks every week on this list. If you like CentOS, use it ... if you like SL then use that. This list is for the CentOS distribution .. it is not for how to use SL or how to migrate to SL. SL is a great product and if people want to use it then I am all for it ... however, talk about it on their mailing list, not ours. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 253 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20110512/f0f9e048/attachment-0004.sig>