On 21/08/12 00:35, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On 20 August 2012 17:22, Ian <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> you are over simplifying the process. Eg. What was the time lag from
>>> when the srpm was released and the rhn notes published to when CentOS
>>> released that specific update ?
>>>
>> I seriously think this is the wrong place to discuss CentOS specifically,
>> don't you?
> 1) To quote you: Firstly, I don't really like being told where I can
> and can't post. If the discussion is off-topic, then so is the topic
> IMHO.
>
> 2) You brought it up and got called on it.
I re-read my comment to KB and what I said was "how can you"... a slight
ambiguity crept in... what I should have said was "how can one". I
wasn't speaking specifically about any disty and I am sorry if my
comments were misread that way. Having said that, I merely expressed an
opinion that I didn't think it was the right place, I didn't *tell*
anybody what to do like the original poster. Go re-read.

> 3) You still haven't proved your point.. you just tried to jog around
the gaping hole in your logic.. eg you did not have any cases that other
clones have a
> release time <= SrpmReleaseTime. Now to go back to your original
email, you pulled in that you were not a scientist but this list is
filled with them and if you > want to advocate your point better.. you
need to have data that can be shared and checked.

CloneReleaseTime <= RHSrpmReleaseTime.... The clone builder can release
before RH releases the source code?? I can't share any data because it
can't exist. Well, if I haven't advocated my point well enough, it is my
loss, is it not?

I am sure the scientists on this list are extremely fastidious. I also
credit them with a fair amount of common sense.

Are you a professional scientist, Mr. Smoogen?