[CentOS-devel] CentOS 7 and release numbering

Sat Jun 7 15:39:45 UTC 2014
Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org>

On 06/07/2014 08:39 AM, Jim Perrin wrote:
>
> On 06/07/2014 12:00 AM, Kay Williams wrote:
>>> On Friday, June 06, 2014 5:44 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
>>>
>>> hi,
>>>
>>> Taking on board the community and environment expansion that is taking
>>> place around the CentOS project, the CentOS Board has been considering
>>> how best to accomodate these efforts.
>>>
>>> I'm attaching here a plan put forward by the board towards that aim.
>>>
>>> Thoughts ? Comments ?
>>>
>> I am still new to the community and so wish to be careful expressing
>> opinions. Certainly, my thoughts will not take fully into account the
>> thoughtful work that has been underway in the community in advance of CentOS
>> 7.
>
> Most people are new on here. This list was very low traffic before the
> concept of SIG/variants. Don't hold back simply because you feel 'new'.
>
> Similarly, the folks who speak up are the community voices we hear. We
> (the board) can end up with tunnel vision or a skewed perception of how
> things are being used if we don't get feedback. We may not agree. We may
> do something you don't like, but your opinion WILL be fully heard.
>
> TL;DR-> Please feel free to speak your mind on the list. Backing up your
> points with facts/technical details makes it stronger, no matter how new
> you are.
>
>
>
>> That said, I hope you will permit a few observations.
>>
>> The first is that it is very powerful for CentOS to maintain the simple
>> message that it has had from the start - 100% compatibility with Red Hat
>> Enterprise Linux. This is what allows people to use and trust it for running
>> their organizations. The more CentOS feels exactly like "RHEL - but without
>> support", the more people understand it and take stock. On the other hand,
>> the more it feels different, the more people feel/fear that they should
>> consider alternatives - maybe Scientific Linux, maybe non-RHEL
>> distributions. They don't want to do this, but stability and dependability
>> are key. Their businesses, and their reputations, are at stake. These are
>> the exact concerns I heard expressed, unsolicited, from other attendees
>> after the CentOS presentation at the Red Hat Summit in May. In particular,
>> there was a great deal of confusion about SIGs/variants, what they were, how
>> they would be implemented, and whether the introduction of variants would
>> mean that CentOS would no longer be compatible with RHEL. Clearly, the goal
>> is to maintain compatibility. But even small things that introduce
>> differences create FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt).
>>
>> The second is that, at an industry level, even minor inconsistencies, like
>> versioning schemes, do more than just raise concerns, they introduce real
>> impediments. OEMs test and certify their hardware for specific versions of
>> RHEL. ISVs likewise test and certify their applications. Previously they
>> could say "this hardware/software has been tested against RHEL 6.3".  And
>> everyone knew this meant that CentOS 6.3 would work against it as well. But
>> with a new versioning scheme, things are less clear.  Now, OEMs/ISVs need to
>> say "compatible with RHEL 7.2/CentOS 1506". Or maybe they just say RHEL 7.2
>> and users are left to translate this to CentOS versioning. But whether it is
>> something OEMS/ISVs, or users do, why force there to be a translation at
>> all? 
>>
>> Seems better to work around issues with the RHEL versioning scheme than to
>> let something that is already potentially confusing (variants) create
>> tangible issues for existing users, and for the broader industry.
> Agree, however appending to the 'RHEL' release schedule (7.1.xx) could
> be misconstrued as RHEL's z-stream support offering. We were trying to
> avoid confusion in that way.

Thanks for your input Kay ... I want to agree with everything Jim said. 
Both about participation by everyone (we want it so we [the board] know
what everyone wants and needs us to be).

I wanted to post this long explanation only once, so while it is also
applicable to answer the second part of your question, I'll link it
instead of posting it again:

http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2014-June/010451.html

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20140607/4061fbe7/attachment-0007.sig>