On 06/09/2014 04:05 PM, Peter wrote:
 On 06/10/2014 05:21 AM, Jim Perrin wrote:
 Indeed. In some areas, we already are. That's what we want to turn
 around. This is the fundamental reason why we can't simply rest and keep
 doing what we've been doing. Even if we're flawless in the core mission,
 we'd still be ignoring emerging areas where we must grow to survive.
 I don't think I've seen anyone argue against SIGs here.  I think most
 people on this list understand the importance of SIGs to CentOS and the
 future that CentOS will have with them.  What I see is many people here
 saying that SIGs should not dictate the direction of the core OS, that
 needs to remain pure to upstream.

No one is saying that anything in the Core OS is changing ... the Core
OS will be the Core OS.  It will be ONLY packages in the RHEL tree and
it will not contain anything extra.  That is not the issue here.  The
issue is, people think they can run CentOS-6.4 after 6.5 is released and
it is the same as running RHEL-6.4 AUS/EUS ... and its not.  Our
numbering is not like their numbering and that is causing massive
confusion that we need to fix.  One can absolutely, positively not stay
behind and have security.  It is very dangerous.

Add to that the fact that the SIGs also may need to have a new installer
be created between RHEL releases, so we may (or may not ... only time
will tell) need to create some new install trees.

None of that adds packages into the os/ or updates/ directory that is
not in RHEL ... that will be the same and people will have to opt-in to
get anything that is not Core .. just like they do now.

<snip>