SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

January 2011

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:
Re: SL policy on errata that came out with the 5.6 release
From:
Troy Dawson <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Troy Dawson <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 14 Jan 2011 08:37:05 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (29 lines) 
Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
> On 1/13/2011 9:29, Troy Dawson wrote:
>> Morten P.D. Stevens wrote:
>>> Which release has the higher priority? SL 6.0 or SL 5.6?
>> SL 6.0 has higher priority.
> 
> My apologies if I'm missing something, but why does SL 6 get priority 
> when SL 5 is the only one of the two with a production install base?
> 

For exactly the reason you seem to think it should be the other way.

If someone wants the functionality of SL5, they can install SL5.5.
If someone wants the functionality of SL6, they can install ... nothing.

That being said, the Scientific Linux development team is pretty good at 
doing multiple releases at the same time.

Just because we say SL6.0 has the priority doesn't mean we don't do any 
work on SL5.6.  It just means that when we have to choose one thing over 
another for a bit, we will give preference to SL6.0.

Troy
-- 
__________________________________________________
Troy Dawson  [log in to unmask]  (630)840-6468
Fermilab  ComputingDivision/SCF/FEF/SLSMS Group
__________________________________________________

ATOM RSS1 RSS2