> If you deferred releasing a 6.0 and instead immediately started working on
> 6.1, how much additional time would that add to getting 6.1 out? I'm not so
> much asking for an actual estimate, as I am whether it would be easier just
> to go directly to 6.1 if it fixes any issues that make building the release
> easier.

An .1 release is basically a .0 release + patches so I don't see any
real difference. The hard part is reverse engineering the .0 release
build environment and the .1 follows pretty quick from there.
Occasionally a .x release breaks the environment and you get
situations like 5.6 was.

Just my $0.02 form trolling the lists the last few years. :-)

--
Drew

Waiting patiently for 6.x so he can try out KVM stuff without having
to do a from scratch reinstall.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

On 05/20/2011 07:46 AM, Kenneth Porter wrote:
> --On Thursday, May 19, 2011 10:22 AM -0400 R P Herrold
> <herrold@owlriver.com> wrote:
>
>> and look at all the anaconda related, and other fixes, that
>> should have been in a dot zero release ... gee
>
> At the risk of opening another can of worms:
>
> If you deferred releasing a 6.0 and instead immediately started working on
> 6.1, how much additional time would that add to getting 6.1 out? I'm not so
> much asking for an actual estimate, as I am whether it would be easier just
> to go directly to 6.1 if it fixes any issues that make building the release
> easier.
>
>

We basically need to get an almost fully functional version of 6.0
working anyway. In order to build the 6.1 packages, we need a fully up
to date 6.0 tree to use for the build roots.

The only thing that might speed up the 6.1 release process is to skip
the anaconda generated ISOs for 6.0. But, in reality we are fairly
close on 6.0 at this point, we may as well release it since we need a
tree to build on anyway.

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

On 05/20/2011 05:55 AM, Drew wrote:
> An .1 release is basically a .0 release + patches so I don't see any
> real difference. The hard part is reverse engineering the .0 release
> build environment and the .1 follows pretty quick from there.

You weren't reading the very long thread of the last week or so (I've
forgotten when it started...) If that were true, then every .x release
would "follow pretty quick". No reason has yet been given to expect 6.1
any more quickly than the average release time (about 6 weeks after 6.0
is released, so maybe 8 weeks from now). Expect it when it's done, and
don't hold your breath.

> Occasionally a .x release breaks the environment and you get
> situations like 5.6 was.

Who said anything about 5.6 breaking the environment? Everyone in the
very long thread gave the excuse that it was done concurrent with other
releases.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

On Sun, 22 May 2011, Gordon Messmer wrote:

> Who said anything about 5.6 breaking the environment? Everyone in the
> very long thread gave the excuse that it was done concurrent with other
> releases.

customary trolling by Gordon Messmer -- passive agressive,
implying an unmet obligation

ex·cuse /ikˈskyo͞os/
Noun: A reason or explanation put forward to defend or justify
a fault or offense.
Verb: Attempt to lessen the blame attaching to (a fault or
offense); seek to defend or justify

If CentOS does not meet your needs, Gordon, please use
something else. In all cases, please troll elsewhere, if you
feel you must troll

-- Russ herrold
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

On 05/22/2011 02:57 PM, R P Herrold wrote:
> customary trolling by Gordon Messmer -- passive agressive,
> implying an unmet obligation

The only obligation that I think exists is for everyone to have
reasonable expectations of the project. If I have ever implied
otherwise, please point me toward it. I intended no such thing.

Random people keep expressing their belief that 6.1 will, for reasons
they do not state, be ready in short order. There is no evidence that
6.1 will take any less time than any other release.

If users had more realistic expectations, there would quite possibly be
less discussion regarding release dates. Instead we repeatedly see
people expecting a short release and then long threads when that doesn't
happen.

I'd be thrilled if 6.1 were ready quickly. I just don't expect it. My
obligation to the CentOS team is to observe the time that previous
releases have required, to understand that there is a great deal of work
involved, and to maintain an expectation that future work will probably
be a lot like work that's been done before. I think every user has that
obligation to the developers.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

I think you're missing the point, if you read between the lines, the
complaint I see is that CentOS (Community Enterprise Operating System)
is not community based whatsoever. Displaying the self-righteous
attitude you are doesn't earn you cookie points or make you look like
you're important. What is important is that the CentOS project should
have a different acronym, perhaps the Closed Enterprise Operating
System?

On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 5:57 PM, R P Herrold <herrold@owlriver.com> wrote:
> customary trolling by Gordon Messmer -- passive agressive,
> implying an unmet obligation
>
> Â* Â* Â* Â*ex·cuse /ikˈskyoÍžos/
> Â* Â* Â* Â*Noun: A reason or explanation put forward to defend or justify
> Â* Â* Â* Â*a fault or offense.
> Â* Â* Â* Â*Verb: Attempt to lessen the blame attaching to (a fault or
> Â* Â* Â* Â*offense); seek to defend or justify
>
> If CentOS does not meet your needs, Gordon, please use
> something else. Â*In all cases, please troll elsewhere, if you
> feel you must troll
>
> -- Russ herrold

--
Steven Crothers
steven.crothers@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

On Sun, 22 May 2011, Steven Crothers wrote:

> I think you're missing the point, if you read between the lines, the
> complaint I see is that CentOS (Community Enterprise Operating System)
> is not community based whatsoever.

I don't mind-read as to what a third party meant so well as
you, it seems

My intent with cAos (post fedora.us), and with CentOS was to
keep available for the FOSS development community at large,
the fruit of the distribution integration represented in the
'testers-list' non-public beta group for the former RHL, and
the years of work represented there, by people both outside
and inside Red Hat. It initially appeared that there would
not be a binary form integrated distribution in RPM packaged
form. Greg of cAos indeed re-worked a fairly initial
installer called 'cinch'

It was not at all clear that Red Hat would not threaten
litigation to close such efforts down. They had made such
threats previously to one of the other co-founders of the
CentOS sub-project of cAos, as to a RHL rebuild and respin he
had marketed

To suggest that CentOS is 'not community based whatsoever'
will come as a great surprise to the donors of bug triage
effort, of mirroring effort, of wiki authoring, of forum
participation, of live-CD 'mixing', and so forth

But as hughesjr mentioned just last week, letting random
people (seemingly a 'community of random and untrusted
persons') feed content that would end up signed in the CentOS
project's name, is simply not going to happen. CentOS has
never been about that

A 'vetting' and reputation system was proposed in some early
design documents for fedora.us, but that project lacked the
mass to make it work; cAos tried a variation of this, and
encountered a problem with its v.2 when a novice packager
inadvertently introduced a 'one way' library version bump,
impairing the maintainability of that release going forward;
The ATrpms v. DAG archive approach on pushing new versions of
certain core packages shows two approaches, and the DAG
non-invasive approach is clearly the mind-share winner --
We've [the third-party packaging community] (at least, I've
been in projects that have) tried variants of 'anyone's code
is welcome' distribution adjunct preparation before, and it
does not work well

CentOS binaries creation process is by and large is a very
literal and non-creative effort

If people want to start their own rebuild efforts, peace be
with them, and good luck. But fostering spin-off's is not
what CentOS is about -- and people railing to the heavens
about how unfair it is that THEIR false expectations (based on
some amorphous vision of how great something COULD be, if only
... ) are not met by the CentOS core team, are simply making
noise here

-- Russ herrold
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

2011/5/23 R P Herrold <herrold@owlriver.com>



A 'vetting' and reputation system was proposed in some early

design documents for fedora.us, but that project lacked the

mass to make it work; cAos tried a variation of this, and

encountered a problem with its v.2 when a novice packager

inadvertently introduced a 'one way' library version bump,

impairing the maintainability of that release going forward;

considering how big were the conversations about what should {not} be done, maybe you're around the critical mass point, and this idea should be reconsidered for the benefit of both the project {developers} and the user's community.


--

"The end is important in all things."
*-- Yamamoto Tsunetomo* / Hagakure / Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai
"The beginning is the most important part of the work."


* -- *Plato




_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

On 05/22/2011 08:05 PM, Steven Crothers wrote:
> I think you're missing the point, if you read between the lines, the
> complaint I see is that CentOS (Community Enterprise Operating System)
> is not community based whatsoever. Displaying the self-righteous
> attitude you are doesn't earn you cookie points or make you look like
> you're important. What is important is that the CentOS project should
> have a different acronym, perhaps the Closed Enterprise Operating
> System?
>

I have said this a million times ... but you are flat out wrong.

The "community" does many, many things for CentOS.

It is the community that makes the CentOS Fora one of the best place to
get information.

The community does all the articles on the CentOS Wiki.

It is the Community that answers questions on bugs.centos.org

It is the community that does the graphics for CentOS.

It is the community that is currently doing the website redesign.

It is the community that is on the QA team, testing before release.

It is the community that provides all the "technical support".

We never said, anywhere, that the community would build the packages,
nor did we say we would teach people how to make the distribution ...
what we said 8 years ago was this:

"CentOS exists to provide a free enterprise class computing platform to
anyone who wishes to use it."

and

"Our purpose is to provide stable Linux solutions for organizations and
individuals who do not need strong commercial support to achieve
successful operation."

In both of those statements, the CentOS Project is "to provide" ... and
the community is "to use" (if they choose to). The community provide
support for each other in the absence of commercial support.

It does not now, nor did it ever say, that a CentOS goal was to teach
anyone how "to produce" anything.


_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

On 05/22/2011 08:05 PM, Steven Crothers wrote:
> I think you're missing the point, if you read between the lines, the
> complaint I see is that CentOS (Community Enterprise Operating System)
> is not community based whatsoever. Displaying the self-righteous
> attitude you are doesn't earn you cookie points or make you look like
> you're important. What is important is that the CentOS project should
> have a different acronym, perhaps the Closed Enterprise Operating
> System?


OH ... and did you see this:

http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2011-May/007605.html

Here, we are asking for someone to get involved with the project. As
usual, the trolls who say CentOS is closed do not volunteer to help
actually do things. Nothing from them but the sound of crickets when we
actually ask for help.


_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos