On Thursday, January 28, 2021 2:55 PM, Gena Makhomed gmm@csdoc.com wrote:
On 28.01.2021 14:54, Neal Gompa wrote:
What I would have liked to see is the addition of some generic low-cost subscription options that would be sufficiently below the floor to fit with even low-margin businesses so that as a business grows from 16, to 50, to 100, to 1000, and so on, the company would continue to use RHEL and continue to support the awesome work Red Hat does. Right now, the current pricing is so unbelievably expensive that I would instead just convert the boxes from RHEL to CentOS Stream after a certain threshold.
CentOS Stream is just a beta-version for next minor RHEL release.
CentOS Stream is not ready for production, see for example, bugreport https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913806
- this bug is present in CentOS Stream 8, but absent in CentOS 8.3.
I agree that Stream in it's current form is beta version quality. That bug is clearly a regression that shouldn't exist in something expected "to have fewer bugs." It is frustrating.
However, I don't believe Stream will always be like that. The key question should be when will we be able to see the existing CI/CD test code and when can we issue pull requests?
I would have liked to have seen a CentOS transistion critera established at the Nov 11th board meeting instead of a hard CentOS 8 termination date. If easier access to RHEL, gitlab and CI/CD access had all been completed *BEFORE* announcing the CentOS 8 end date, I think it would have been recieved better. Then when the criteria was reached start the 12 month clock to kill CentOS 8.
Of course, that is not what happened. So, while I am sure community access to improve CI/CD testing could bring Stream out of a beta like state eventually, I don't know if that can be accomplished by the end of the year. There is a lot of work to do.
If we can't get Stream in better shape in time for the C8 beheading, I would completely understand if you look at alternatives to Stream.