FAQ
http://twitter.com/centos

"So: QA 5.6 and 6.0 in parallel or prefer one release over the other.
Imho, 5.6 impacts existing installs, should get higher pref. Thoughts ?"

Agree. A public announcement of a decision on this, when made, would
help head off a lot of user questions.

Phil

P.S.

Apologies to the QA list for the cross-post. On refection I thought a
more public forum would be appropriate for this discussion.

Search Discussions

  • Nux at Jan 13, 2011 at 1:47 pm
    Phil Schaffner writes:

    http://twitter.com/centos

    "So: QA 5.6 and 6.0 in parallel or prefer one release over the other.
    Imho, 5.6 impacts existing installs, should get higher pref. Thoughts ?"

    Agree. A public announcement of a decision on this, when made, would
    help head off a lot of user questions.
    +1, 5.6 should have higher prio.
    Phil

    P.S.

    Apologies to the QA list for the cross-post. On refection I thought a
    more public forum would be appropriate for this discussion.
    +1, not everyone uses twitter

    _______________________________________________
    CentOS-devel mailing list
    CentOS-devel at centos.org
    http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
  • Akemi Yagi at Jan 13, 2011 at 12:54 pm

    On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 10:47 AM, wrote:
    Phil Schaffner writes:
    http://twitter.com/centos

    "So: QA 5.6 and 6.0 in parallel or prefer one release over the other.
    Imho, 5.6 impacts existing installs, should get higher pref. Thoughts ?"

    Agree. ?A public announcement of a decision on this, when made, would
    help head off a lot of user questions.
    +1, 5.6 should have higher prio.
    +1 for 5.6. I think 5.6 is more important than 6.0 at this point. Many
    sysadmins might even wait for 6.1 (avoiding .0 releases). Security
    fixes in 5.6 should be given a higher priority. Also demand (request)
    for php5.3 has been so high ...

    Akemi
  • Fabian Arrotin at Jan 13, 2011 at 4:00 pm

    Phil Schaffner wrote:
    http://twitter.com/centos

    "So: QA 5.6 and 6.0 in parallel or prefer one release over the other.
    Imho, 5.6 impacts existing installs, should get higher pref. Thoughts ?"

    Agree. A public announcement of a decision on this, when made, would
    help head off a lot of user questions.

    Phil
    Let me express my personal opinion on that discussion (there was already
    a small discussion about that on IRC).
    I'd prefer seeing 5.6 than 6.0 and for specific reasons :

    - the centos 5.x install base is there while there is (obviously) no
    centos 6 install base.
    - So those people having machines in production, faced to the net, etc,
    etc would prefer having their machines patched and up2date (security
    first !)
    - people running CentOS 5.x on servers and waiting for php53 packages,
    now officially included
    - on the build side, the el5 build process is clearly identified and
    known since 2007 : packages with branding issues are already identified
    and patches/artwork is already there, meaning that it will be probably
    (surely) faster to have 5.6 out of the door than 6
    - same rule for the QA process : people from the QA team can blindly
    focus on their previous tests, and just have a look eventually at some
    newer packages (a few, like php53 but not that much in comparison with el6)


    --
    --
    Fabian Arrotin
  • Karanbir Singh at Jan 13, 2011 at 5:30 pm

    On 01/13/2011 05:31 PM, Phil Schaffner wrote:
    "So: QA 5.6 and 6.0 in parallel or prefer one release over the other.
    Imho, 5.6 impacts existing installs, should get higher pref. Thoughts ?"

    Agree. A public announcement of a decision on this, when made, would
    help head off a lot of user questions.
    From my perspective:

    - 5.6 impacts existing installs

    - 5.6 and updates contain security issues

    - 5.x buildsys and process is fairly well tested and completely
    independent from 6.x; the main resources are not even hosted in the same
    country!

    - the 5.6 testing process, for whatever automation we have at the
    moment, is completely independent from 6.x's stuff ; the patching
    process is also completely automated ( Except for a few packages that I
    need to do by hand and a handful others that pitch in with specific
    patches - but overall its fairly quickly done )

    - Finally, all packages for 5.6 are in the buildqueue and first round of
    builds is complete ( the last package dropped out about 2 minutes back ).

    The only place where there is an overlap is in the QA process. But my
    guess is that having been through 5 previous releases, the QA guys can
    address this fairly quickly.

    however there are a few other implications that need to be considered
    before making a decision. Firstly, the mirror situation. If we were to
    drop 5.6 in a few days time - we would need to wait for mirror's to
    stabilise before we move to releasing 6.0. I am not sure what that time
    lag needs to be, but it should be possible to workout.

    What I am going to propose is that lets let both the threads run through
    for the moment. Lets meet in #centos-devel at irc.freenode.net at 1600 hrs
    on Friday the 14th Jan 2011 and talk about this, get a plan together.
    That time should hopefully be late enough for the Americans to be awake,
    but early enough for the Germans to not be drunk yet :)

    - KB
  • Matthew Miller at Jan 13, 2011 at 6:56 pm

    On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 10:30:55PM +0000, Karanbir Singh wrote:
    From my perspective:
    - 5.6 impacts existing installs
    - 5.6 and updates contain security issues
    This alone seems enough. The rest is frosting. :)


    --
    Matthew Miller mattdm at mattdm.org <http://mattdm.org/>
  • Hubert Bahr at Jan 13, 2011 at 11:59 pm

    Matthew Miller wrote:
    On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 10:30:55PM +0000, Karanbir Singh wrote:

    From my perspective:
    - 5.6 impacts existing installs
    - 5.6 and updates contain security issues
    This alone seems enough. The rest is frosting. :)
    A different perspective. RHEL-5, CentOS-5 no matter what point change
    is essentially obsolete. Thus the need for RHEL-6, CentOS-6 which are
    actually a couple of years late. How much has changed form 5.5 +
    updates to 5.6. How many existing systems will use the iso's instead of
    yum update. Iso's are primarily used for new installs. If I am making
    a new install, am I waiting for 5.6 or for 6.x? I had to leave CentOS
    for many of my systems a couple of years ago because it did not support
    the newer applications. So 6 fills a void currently painfully handled
    by Fedora instead of an enterprise class system. Bug fixes are needed
    by installed systems, they should be released as soon as the bug is
    fixed. Point changes are primarily a snapshot taken to speed up an
    install on a new system not to update a current system.
    Hubert
  • John R. Dennison at Jan 14, 2011 at 12:37 am

    On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 10:59:10PM -0600, Hubert Bahr wrote:
    A different perspective. RHEL-5, CentOS-5 no matter what point change
    is essentially obsolete. Thus the need for RHEL-6, CentOS-6 which are
    Except for the whole "supported until 2014" thing.
    actually a couple of years late. How much has changed form 5.5 +
    updates to 5.6. How many existing systems will use the iso's instead of
    Many will for new installs / rollouts where network installs,
    cobbler, etc are not available to them.
    yum update. Iso's are primarily used for new installs. If I am making
    a new install, am I waiting for 5.6 or for 6.x? I had to leave CentOS
    for many of my systems a couple of years ago because it did not support
    the newer applications. So 6 fills a void currently painfully handled
    by Fedora instead of an enterprise class system. Bug fixes are needed
    Third-party repos provide *MUCH* of the functionality that
    Fedora provides; and don't bring the rolling target issues
    with them.
    by installed systems, they should be released as soon as the bug is
    fixed. Point changes are primarily a snapshot taken to speed up an
    install on a new system not to update a current system.
    People are going to continue to install 5 until 5 is EOL. That
    is still 4+ years out. And as such they need ISO sets
    available.

    People, at least 2.5 million if the ip count that Karanbir
    has mentioned is accurate, use C5; expecting that all of them are
    going to leave 5 behind and use 6 is just silly. *Many* people
    are locked into a platform for the life of that platform. These
    are *existing* users, not those planning on migrating to 6
    whenever it is available.





    John
    --
    Much of what looks like rudeness in hacker circles is not intended to give
    offense. Rather, it's the product of the direct, cut-through-the-bullshit
    communications style that is natural to people who are more concerned about
    solving problems than making others feel warm and fuzzy.

    http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
    -------------- next part --------------
    A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
    Name: not available
    Type: application/pgp-signature
    Size: 189 bytes
    Desc: not available
    Url : http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20110113/66e3f1de/attachment.bin
  • Hubert Bahr at Jan 14, 2011 at 12:56 am

    John R. Dennison wrote:
    On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 10:59:10PM -0600, Hubert Bahr wrote:

    A different perspective. RHEL-5, CentOS-5 no matter what point change
    is essentially obsolete. Thus the need for RHEL-6, CentOS-6 which are
    Except for the whole "supported until 2014" thing.

    actually a couple of years late. How much has changed form 5.5 +
    updates to 5.6. How many existing systems will use the iso's instead of
    Many will for new installs / rollouts where network installs,
    Point made new installs/rollouts
    cobbler, etc are not available to them.

    yum update. Iso's are primarily used for new installs. If I am making
    a new install, am I waiting for 5.6 or for 6.x? I had to leave CentOS
    for many of my systems a couple of years ago because it did not support
    the newer applications. So 6 fills a void currently painfully handled
    by Fedora instead of an enterprise class system. Bug fixes are needed
    Third-party repos provide *MUCH* of the functionality that
    Fedora provides; and don't bring the rolling target issues
    Painful is fedora, but hardware/new apps with 5 not filling the void.
    Upstream recognizes the loss to other vendors so released 6.0 well
    before 5.6 although 5.6 is much easier.
    with them.

    by installed systems, they should be released as soon as the bug is
    fixed. Point changes are primarily a snapshot taken to speed up an
    install on a new system not to update a current system.
    People are going to continue to install 5 until 5 is EOL. That
    is still 4+ years out. And as such they need ISO sets
    available.
    Agreed but updates full fill the major majority of the needs for the
    current installs. I never advocated dropping 5 just keeping the
    release order in the same sequence as upstream.
    People, at least 2.5 million if the ip count that Karanbir
    has mentioned is accurate, use C5; expecting that all of them are
    going to leave 5 behind and use 6 is just silly.
    This statement was asinine since nobody expects systems "satisfied" by
    C5 to switch. But do not expect those dissatisfied by C5 to wait while
    you switch the release order of the upstream vendor.
    *Many* people
    are locked into a platform for the life of that platform. These
    are *existing* users, not those planning on migrating to 6
    whenever it is available.





    John

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    _______________________________________________
    CentOS-devel mailing list
    CentOS-devel at centos.org
    http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
  • Jerry Amundson at Jan 14, 2011 at 1:29 am

    On 1/13/11, Hubert Bahr wrote:
    John R. Dennison wrote:
    On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 10:59:10PM -0600, Hubert Bahr wrote:
    A different perspective. RHEL-5, CentOS-5 no matter what point change
    is essentially obsolete. Thus the need for RHEL-6, CentOS-6 which are
    Except for the whole "supported until 2014" thing
    actually a couple of years late. How much has changed form 5.5 +
    updates to 5.6. How many existing systems will use the iso's instead of
    Many will for new installs / rollouts where network installs,
    Point made new installs/rollouts
    Non-sequitur, your facts are uncoordinated.
    Check back again when you think about more than one use case.

    jerry
  • John R. Dennison at Jan 14, 2011 at 1:29 am

    On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 11:56:30PM -0600, Hubert Bahr wrote:
    Painful is fedora, but hardware/new apps with 5 not filling the void.
    Upstream recognizes the loss to other vendors so released 6.0 well
    before 5.6 although 5.6 is much easier.
    I will give you the hardware edge here as it's a valid argument;
    but the I still maintain that most "modern" userland
    functionality can be had by appropriate use of third-party
    vetted repos.
    Agreed but updates full fill the major majority of the needs for the
    current installs. I never advocated dropping 5 just keeping the
    release order in the same sequence as upstream.
    C6 is already quite late, for various definitions of "late";
    moving it back however much more to get 5.6 dealt with and out
    the door and off the dev's plates isn't going to make or break
    it for most I wouldn't think. Speaking for myself, I want 5.6
    and have little use for 6 at the present time. 5.6+security
    rollups is a much higher priority for myself and my clients.
    This statement was asinine since nobody expects systems "satisfied" by
    C5 to switch. But do not expect those dissatisfied by C5 to wait while
    you switch the release order of the upstream vendor.
    Those that aren't satisfied are free to purchase appropriate
    upstream entitlements :)




    John
    --
    We only think when we are confronted with problems.

    -- John Dewey (1859-1952), American philosopher, educator
    -------------- next part --------------
    A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
    Name: not available
    Type: application/pgp-signature
    Size: 189 bytes
    Desc: not available
    Url : http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20110114/a3360ea1/attachment.bin
  • Alex/AT at Jan 14, 2011 at 1:45 am
    Hubert Bahr <hab at hbahr.org> ?????(?) ? ????? ?????? Fri, 14 Jan 2011
    07:59:10 +0300:
    A different perspective. RHEL-5, CentOS-5 no matter what point change
    is essentially obsolete. Thus the need for RHEL-6, CentOS-6 which are
    actually a couple of years late. How much has changed form 5.5 +
    updates to 5.6. How many existing systems will use the iso's instead of
    yum update. Iso's are primarily used for new installs. If I am making
    a new install, am I waiting for 5.6 or for 6.x? I had to leave CentOS
    for many of my systems a couple of years ago because it did not support
    the newer applications. So 6 fills a void currently painfully handled
    by Fedora instead of an enterprise class system. Bug fixes are needed
    by installed systems, they should be released as soon as the bug is
    fixed. Point changes are primarily a snapshot taken to speed up an
    install on a new system not to update a current system.
    Hubert
    If you can afford Fedora on your systems, there isn't need to worry about
    C6, because you've already given up on stability.
    And those who want stability, still use C5.
  • Hubert Bahr at Jan 14, 2011 at 2:24 am

    Alex/AT wrote:
    Hubert Bahr <hab at hbahr.org> ?????(?) ? ????? ?????? Fri, 14 Jan 2011
    07:59:10 +0300:

    A different perspective. RHEL-5, CentOS-5 no matter what point change
    is essentially obsolete. Thus the need for RHEL-6, CentOS-6 which are
    actually a couple of years late. How much has changed form 5.5 +
    updates to 5.6. How many existing systems will use the iso's instead of
    yum update. Iso's are primarily used for new installs. If I am making
    a new install, am I waiting for 5.6 or for 6.x? I had to leave CentOS
    for many of my systems a couple of years ago because it did not support
    the newer applications. So 6 fills a void currently painfully handled
    by Fedora instead of an enterprise class system. Bug fixes are needed
    by installed systems, they should be released as soon as the bug is
    fixed. Point changes are primarily a snapshot taken to speed up an
    install on a new system not to update a current system.
    Hubert
    If you can afford Fedora on your systems, there isn't need to worry about
    C6, because you've already given up on stability.
    And those who want stability, still use C5.
    If C5 doesn't cut the mustard you are forced to a different solution.
    Lack of stability in Fedora is a Pain thus the need for 6. Obsolescence
    is also a pain not all applications have the same demands. You are
    lucky if your demands are met by less than near state of the art. Of
    course hardware is evolving so fast and new designs are quite often
    provide much more bang for the buck that it is uneconomical to maintain
    them. We used to buy source code to maintain systems far past their
    prime, but maintenance costs soon drowned out replacement costs, so
    strategies evolved. So to must the OS.
    I would prefer not to use two different OS's but I am updating
    hardware. CentOS 6 is so late that I already have developed my own
    binaries and will use them. No I can not distribute them. Even with
    this solution it will take time to migrate the remaining systems. EPEL
    has a schedule to release EPEL 6 that completely eliminates the use of
    Fedora, I am very glad to be able to get back to an Enterprise system.
    Nobody has yet told me what the difference is between 5.5 + updates
    and 5.6 that makes it essential to push back the rollout of 6.0. I have
    no argument with security fixes, but aren't those already covered by the
    updates? Are the new features so essential to the installed base that
    they need them before the rollout of C6? How long a delay is that? No
    EPEL 5 etal does not meet my needs for all of my systems although most
    still use it. I have avoided jumping to non-rpm based distributions,
    but the temptation is still there. On some of my systems they are the
    easy way out due to specific applications which are not covered by epel
    etal supplements.
    Yes I have already purchased some subscriptions, I would have
    preferred to donate the money to CentOS. It is now spent so it is no
    longer available for donation.
    Don't slam a different perspective, please try to understand it.
    Hubert
    _______________________________________________
    CentOS-devel mailing list
    CentOS-devel at centos.org
    http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
  • John R. Dennison at Jan 14, 2011 at 2:55 am

    On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 01:24:43AM -0600, Hubert Bahr wrote:
    If C5 doesn't cut the mustard you are forced to a different solution.
    Yep, C5 base/updates and your 3rd-party repo of choice for
    userland and elrepo for drivers for more modern hardware in
    many cases.
    Nobody has yet told me what the difference is between 5.5 + updates
    and 5.6 that makes it essential to push back the rollout of 6.0. I have
    php53 and bind97 are show-stoppers for many; both are obtainable
    outside the official channels now, but having them as part of
    base is quite useful for many. bind97, with the support for
    DNSSEC it offers, is a hard requirement in many industry sectors
    at the present time.
    no argument with security fixes, but aren't those already covered by the
    updates? Are the new features so essential to the installed base that
    they need them before the rollout of C6? How long a delay is that? No
    Yes, in many peoples opinions they are quite essential.
    EPEL 5 etal does not meet my needs for all of my systems although most
    still use it. I have avoided jumping to non-rpm based distributions,
    but the temptation is still there. On some of my systems they are the
    easy way out due to specific applications which are not covered by epel
    etal supplements.
    epel is not the only game in town.
    Yes I have already purchased some subscriptions, I would have
    preferred to donate the money to CentOS. It is now spent so it is no
    longer available for donation.
    The project hasn't taken monetary donations since '09 as far as
    I know. You are still supporting the project, albeit
    indirectly, by getting RH entitlements. Supporting the upstream
    is always in the project's best interest.
    Don't slam a different perspective, please try to understand it.
    Yep, please try to see the point that 5.6 is extremely important
    to many.




    John
    --
    Much of what looks like rudeness in hacker circles is not intended to give
    offense. Rather, it's the product of the direct, cut-through-the-bullshit
    communications style that is natural to people who are more concerned about
    solving problems than making others feel warm and fuzzy.

    http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
    -------------- next part --------------
    A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
    Name: not available
    Type: application/pgp-signature
    Size: 189 bytes
    Desc: not available
    Url : http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20110114/07be9f9f/attachment.bin
  • Felix Schwarz at Jan 14, 2011 at 4:17 am

    Am 14.01.2011 08:24, schrieb Hubert Bahr:
    Nobody has yet told me what the difference is between 5.5 + updates
    and 5.6 that makes it essential to push back the rollout of 6.0.I have
    no argument with security fixes, but aren't those already covered by the
    updates?
    No. 5.6 contains fixes that are not available for CentOS until 5.6 is
    out. So it's not about new installs, it's about keeping existing 5.x
    installations secure.

    fs
  • Karanbir Singh at Jan 14, 2011 at 5:51 am
    Hi Hubert,
    On 01/14/2011 04:59 AM, Hubert Bahr wrote:
    From my perspective:
    - 5.6 impacts existing installs
    - 5.6 and updates contain security issues
    A different perspective. RHEL-5, CentOS-5 no matter what point change
    is essentially obsolete. Thus the need for RHEL-6, CentOS-6 which are
    actually a couple of years late. How much has changed form 5.5 +
    That makes perfect sense - however, its not a case of one or the other,
    its just a case of which one we get out of the door first. Also, since
    the QA team is largely a different set of people helping out with
    CentOS-6 and the infra team, there might be a a bit of potential to keep
    more people busy productively through the next few weeks if we were to
    get the 5.6 isos and tree over into QA first.

    Lets see if we can get a decision on irc later today. The over whelming
    requests seem to be to get 5.6 out first, but its always good to talk
    about - there are valid points in either direction.

    - KB
  • David Hrbáč at Jan 14, 2011 at 2:23 am

    Dne 13.1.2011 23:30, Karanbir Singh napsal(a):
    however there are a few other implications that need to be considered
    before making a decision. Firstly, the mirror situation. If we were to
    drop 5.6 in a few days time - we would need to wait for mirror's to
    stabilise before we move to releasing 6.0. I am not sure what that time
    lag needs to be, but it should be possible to workout.

    What I am going to propose is that lets let both the threads run through
    for the moment. Lets meet in #centos-devel at irc.freenode.net at 1600 hrs
    on Friday the 14th Jan 2011 and talk about this, get a plan together.
    That time should hopefully be late enough for the Americans to be awake,
    but early enough for the Germans to not be drunk yet :)

    - KB
    Karanbir,
    so the C5 process is fairly clear and should be simple and quick. 21
    days to release might be enough and I guess now it the time to
    internally set some deadline.
    1st week - build process
    2dn week - QA/rebuild iteration
    3rd week - seeding the mirrors

    One more thing, I can remember a lot of people willing to help don't
    want to use IRC.

    Regrads,
    DH
  • Karanbir Singh at Jan 14, 2011 at 5:28 am

    On 01/14/2011 07:23 AM, David Hrb?? wrote:
    so the C5 process is fairly clear and should be simple and quick. 21
    days to release might be enough and I guess now it the time to
    internally set some deadline.
    1st week - build process
    For c5, that might be more than whats needed - but lets assume that
    things take a week to resolve because we are also working with the c6
    package. We should be able to get an iso set for 5.6.build1
    2dn week - QA/rebuild iteration
    This is the bit that's hard to put a time on, the QA guys dont seem to
    like being time box'd in; having said that most of them seem to agree
    that since their own process are well rehearsed at this time, it should
    be a lot faster than the c6 stack.
    One more thing, I can remember a lot of people willing to help don't
    want to use IRC.
    That is an issue for the time being, using irc is just so much quicker
    and more productive at the moment. Ideally, getting some sort of an
    webapp together that lets people coordinate in an async manner would be
    the way to go, but having tried quite a few of them we didn't really
    come up with anything that we could use out of the box. I know that
    Steve has been working on the open-atrium install, but it might still be
    a few months before we can use it for a proper release yet.

    - KB
  • Karanbir Singh at Jan 14, 2011 at 8:58 am

    On 01/13/2011 10:30 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
    What I am going to propose is that lets let both the threads run through
    for the moment. Lets meet in #centos-devel at irc.freenode.net at 1600 hrs
    on Friday the 14th Jan 2011
    that was meant to be 16:00 UTC

    - KB
  • James Hogarth at Jan 14, 2011 at 11:40 am
    As per discussion on mailing list if some more hardware is helpful I
    have a DL380G6 empty of anything right now in my rack I can rebuild
    and/or spin VMs on for ISO/anaconda/anything testing.

    It doesn't have a public address space but I can provide feedback at
    the very least.

    James Hogarth
  • Veiko Kukk at Jan 14, 2011 at 6:34 am

    On 13/01/11 19:31, Phil Schaffner wrote:
    http://twitter.com/centos

    "So: QA 5.6 and 6.0 in parallel or prefer one release over the other.
    Imho, 5.6 impacts existing installs, should get higher pref. Thoughts ?"
    My vote goes for 6.0. We can live without 5.6, but 6.0 is really needed.

    --
    Veiko
  • Lucas Timm LH at Jan 14, 2011 at 7:29 am
    Whatever.

    But in my opinion, both are important, but I think CentOS 5.6 is more
    important than 6 at this time. Yes, I'm really expecting for CentOS 6, but
    when C6 is ready I will take some time to migrate my "old" CentOS 5 platform
    to C6. Deploy a new C6 server will be really easy, but migrating my
    "outdated" systems to them, don't.

    In other side I can easily update any CentOS 5.x to CentOS 5.6 (I still have
    some Cent OS 5.3 running mission critical things), and that's give me more
    time to do a migration plan.

    I still think those people who waited RHEL6/C6 for so long time would wait a
    month more or two. Because the people who wants fresh packages shouldn't use
    Cent OS. I'm always looking for stability in first place, and the C5 base is
    very well consolidated in hardware suppliers and software companies.

    (and thanks for the email in the list, I don't use twitter).


    2011/1/14 Veiko Kukk <veiko at ekp.ee>
    On 13/01/11 19:31, Phil Schaffner wrote:
    http://twitter.com/centos

    "So: QA 5.6 and 6.0 in parallel or prefer one release over the other.
    Imho, 5.6 impacts existing installs, should get higher pref. Thoughts ?"
    My vote goes for 6.0. We can live without 5.6, but 6.0 is really needed.

    --
    Veiko
    _______________________________________________
    CentOS-devel mailing list
    CentOS-devel at centos.org
    http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel


    --
    Lucas Timm, Goi?nia/GO.
    http://timmerman.wordpress.com

    (62) 8198-0867
    -------------- next part --------------
    An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
    URL: http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20110114/ff559a27/attachment.html

Related Discussions

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase