SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

August 2012

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Ian Murray <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Ian Murray <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:31:05 +0100
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (48 lines)


> Yeah, I did. I'm bouncing around mal  clients and browsers lately.
> (Working with a hot new MacBook., got some virtualized Linux OS's on
> it, inlcuding Scientific Linux.)
> 

Np, I did it myself earlier.


> Even if it's the point you meant, it's not the point you made. Our
> upstream vendor, and our rebuilders, do insert the inevitable phase
> delay of rebuild times from the original source code, which our
> favorite upstream vendor publishes for us as SRPM's. Each of those
> builds, and the pre-release versions published in their development
> channels, include some modest testing and provide opportunities, often
> used, for actual testing.
> 

Ok, well I apologise for any confusion if I didn't explain myself properly the first time


> By the time it's actually released, it's usually pretty well tested,
> especially from a reputable vendor whose support calls are one of
> their biggest corporate costs. There are sometimes feature changes and
> discrepancies that can cause issues, but this is not the same as
> saying they've not been tested.

I assumed the testing we refer to is the post upstream testing. The upstream testing would be a level playing field for all clones. I can believe that functional testing between distributions will be different as the clones have different goals. 


> 
> He pointed you to the CentOS release process. Though not active on
> those mailing lists anymore, I can point you to the parallels in the
> Scientific Linux release process: the SRPM's are published, they work
> from the already tested upstream vendor source to the legal limits of
> trademark and other licenses, and they publish the pre-release code
> for early testing before putting in the mainline updates.
> 
> There are cases where new releases, especially with security tweaks,
> cause issues. I cited Subversion as a prize example.
>

He commented after my original post about the release process. I do need to add that I didn't read the "CentOS quicker than SL" thread of a few days ago. If there is relevant info in there, then I am afraid I did not see it because I avoided that thread like the plague... I could see no good coming of it.

I think this thread is done to death now. Sorry for boring everyone. ;)


ATOM RSS1 RSS2