On Friday, February 26, 2021 8:33 AM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
I get it, people want what they had. Hell, I want it too. If / When the other downstream RHEL source code builds happen, use them if that is what you want. None of that requires bashing CentOS. CentOS is not bashing any of those distros.
Ok. But why is that what you want too?
Why isn't KW's blog post enough to consider Stream a win-win?
There seems to be belief that CentOS being a downstream will provide better QA than CentOS as an upstream.
I think KW was right that with a community drive of CD/CI that being an Upstream will be a win-win.
I see two reasons why on the CentOS 8 termination date why adoption of Stream 8 might be poor.
First is it sounds like Stream 8 will already be a de-focused project by that date. It isn't clear my request for a breakdown on the Stream 8 kernel patches will ever be honored. I see going from CentOS 8 to Stream 9 as much more jarring then transitioning to Stream 8. The project should be putting it's best foot forward on Stream 8 first and then focusing on 9.
Second is the timing of getting CD/CI to a mature state.
Some of the CD/CI test I see needed are complex and I can't find any current public example code of how to perform. If there is a CVE which causes a denial of service, what is the establish procedure of testing if the problem still exists? Is there any existing CD/CI tests that are performed in a VM with external monitoring to see if the test passes or fails (if the VM becomes unresponsive)?
If I am able to get a complex test that a current C8S package fails in April, how soon should we expect a fix and rebuild of the package? What if the fix reveals more tests are needed that it then also fails?
Is there any point in which a potential Stream adopter starts a 90 day evaluation of Stream in October while there are packages that are failing CD/CI tests because the packages haven't been rebuilt yet?
What was the basis for the determination Jan 1, 2022 is the best date to promote Stream focus/adoption?
Rich Bowen has pointed out multiple times the community through it's contributions gets a say in the success or failure of Stream. I believe to some extent that is true. But at the same time, we have already been vetoed on deciding when we are in a ready state. There is no attempt to seek community consensus on the target date.
If we just drive people to other RHEL clones then we have lost building a focus with those people around Stream. Isn't that enough reason to lay out a set of prerequisites for a "when Stream is ready" criteria before shutting down CentOS 8?