On 12/20/20 7:19 PM, Mark Mielke wrote:
On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 6:34 PM Gordon Messmer gordon.messmer@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/19/20 8:27 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 12:29 PM Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org wrote:
It's important to note that the CentOS Linux rebuild never actually had this. RHEL minor releases are actually branches, and you can stay at a minor release and still get security updates.
Are you saying the CentOS point releases do *not* match as closely as possible the corresponding RHEL point release?
No, no one is saying that. Matthew said that you can stay at a minor release of RHEL and still get security updates. CentOS does not offer that.
This is not correct. Please stop saying it. CentOS is bug-for-bug compatible with RHEL for *active* releases.
CentOS is compatible with the current release. I don't think anyone is saying that it isn't. I honestly can't figure out why you're telling me that I'm wrong and then arguing what seems to be a completely different point. Unless...
You and Matthew are confusing RHEL with RHEL EUS.
Are you objecting because you think that RHEL and RHEL EUS are different products? I would have described EUS as a different support contract for the same product, but at that point you're *really* parsing words carefully.
Mark is confusing the issue somewhat. I *think* he is trying to say that when we say that CentOS point releases have no branches, we're saying that there's no QA, which is absolutely not what we're saying. We're not talking about the back end development process, we're talking about the products that are delivered to customers. Customers can choose what branch of the RHEL product to deploy on their systems, and how long to use a given point release. CentOS users don't get that level of support.
This is also false. Moving CentOS from "downstream" to "upstream" absolutely affects where QA fits into the process. This is a fundamental thing that is being ripped out from under you - and you don't even realize.
I think that your position here implies that end-users who run beta releases are responsible for the quality of Red Hat's releases, and I don't know any reason to believe that. In particular, Red Hat employees tell us that "literally almost nobody uses them":
http://crunchtools.com/before-you-get-mad-about-the-centos-stream-change-thi...
I don't have any reason to disbelieve that, so when I think about how Red Hat is able to manage a high-quality release, I tend to think that it's because they have a rigorous testing process for the software they distribute, and they have repeatedly told us in this list that CentOS Stream updates will have gone through that process.