>> In general the release of CentOS 6 has been appreciated a lot in the
>> German-speaking countries. But a lot of ppl complained about how updates
>> are handled in transition phases between minor releases (e.g. 5.5 to 5.6).
> erm, we addressed this a while back with the conversation about the CR
> process ( its even mentioned in the C6 announcement )
Sorry, have unsubscribed from -devel for a while because I was tired of
troll discussions, which happened recently
> in a nutshell, there are 4 key facts :
> - all updates are provided in a sane build ( ie, some tests have been
> done and they *should* be all in a good state ); its not easy to isolate
> the SA's only, it would need to be everything
> - Its not dropped in by default, the user would need to make a manual
> choice to opt into this repo
> - We need to think about, put in place and execute a very visible and
> very focused education campeign to make sure that a large number of
> people are aware of its existance, know what the implications are, and
> have the facts they need to make a decision.
> - The process needs to gurantee an exit strategy / rebase to <rel>/os/ +
> <rel>/updates when a point release is publicly available with media.
Okay, so this CR repo is meant to be some kind of rolling (maybe similar
to SL's rolling repo)? In fact, there should not be a problem to get
back to the os/ updates/ repo as it's all about package versions. Of
course, if one switches back during a release, he/she will have a mixed
env, but it will be cleared on next point release.
> We are getting this ready for 6.0/CR/ at this very moment ( and it might
> be a few days before it starts seeing rpms ) - so if there are things
> that need bashed out or spoken about or design issues that concern
> anyone, now would be a great time to share
Is it planned for the complete cycle or only till 6.1 has been finished?
Because it sounds like a good idea, in general.
CentOS-devel mailing list