On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 1:30 PM Mike McGrath mmcgrath@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 10:57 AM Mark Mielke mark.mielke@gmail.com wrote:
Of course, if Red Hat would like to clarify here and tell me that I am absolutely wrong, and the "c8" branch will definitely be maintained into 2022, I will apologize for my doubt. Feel free to force me to apologize. I will be happy to apologize if I am wrong. Just let me know.
A fair question. I've been in a few discussions related to this internally and there are no plans to make changes for RHEL8 (IE: us sending our debranded(ish) code to the centos git instance). I could imagine scenarios where that gets moved to gitlab. But generally how we push will remain the duration of RHEL8 - we just won't be building it into CentOS. Don't take this to mean it's a guarantee or that Red Hat promised or whatever. I'm just saying that at the moment we've discussed it, no one is currently advocating for us to stop releasing RHEL8 code in the way we do, and so we have no plans on changes there at this time.
Hmmm... with no guarantee or promise, I can't decide whether I should apologize. :-) But, I do appreciate the consideration, so thanks for that.
Unless it is mostly or fully automated, I think the effort to maintain it will likely put it out of scope without a commitment to keep it up-to-date. But, personally I prefer the original SRPM on the FTP site approach anyways rather than Red Hat taking on the effort of de-branding and keeping these up-to-date, so personally - if either of these are maintained, it will come across as good faith for me.
For 9, it seems less likely we'll have the same branching structure unless we've got some particular use for it as part of the CentOS Stream process. All the code will be in GitLab as part of stream but exactly how that gets linked to point in time releases, branches, etc - may be part of our internal release process.
Interesting to plan ahead, but I think it is expected that 9 would change things around. Most of the concern around 8 for me, has to do with the mid-release change. Personally, I would have been less surprised, and less concerned, if the original announcement you made was about 9, and 8 was allowed to run its course.
Thanks,