For those who don't follow the QA RSS, see: http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa/node/120 to get the latest info on the status of 6.2. Looks good so far!
On 12-12-11 17:25, Lamar Owen wrote:> For those who don't follow the QA RSS, see: > http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa/node/120 > to get the latest info on the status of 6.2. Looks good so far!Wow that is amazing progress. You guys are doing a great job! Kudos to all involved! Regards, Patrick
On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 11:25 -0500, Lamar Owen wrote:> For those who don't follow the QA RSS, see: > http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa/node/120 > to get the latest info on the status of 6.2. Looks good so far! > _I am really impressed! That IS quick.
On Monday, December 12, 2011 11:48:38 AM Patrick Lists wrote:> Wow that is amazing progress. You guys are doing a great job! > Kudos to all involved!Indeed. From what I can tell, being that I have an upstream EL6.2 box running, the 6.0 to 6.1 transition is much more disruptive (in terms of packaging and the installer) than the 6.1 to 6.2 transition, since there were lots of installer 'things' fixed in 6.1, and since version numbers are stabilizing (I would suspect) in the upstream buildroots. I did not install any upstream EL6.0 boxes; I'm going on the differences I have seen between doing the upstream EL6.1 install and installs of CentOS 6.0.
On 12/12/11 16:25, Lamar Owen wrote:> For those who don't follow the QA RSS, see: > http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa/node/120 > to get the latest info on the status of 6.2. Looks good so far! > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centosAh, I forgot about that qaweb thing :-). Thanks for reminding me. And for the CentOS Team: Great progress, and thank you :-D. -- Jake