[CentOS-devel] CentOS 7 and release numbering

On 06/07/2014 12:00 AM, Kay Williams wrote:
>> On Friday, June 06, 2014 5:44 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
>>
>> hi,
>>
>> Taking on board the community and environment expansion that is taking
>> place around the CentOS project, the CentOS Board has been considering
>> how best to accomodate these efforts.
>>
>> I'm attaching here a plan put forward by the board towards that aim.
>>
>> Thoughts ? Comments ?
>>
> 
> I am still new to the community and so wish to be careful expressing
> opinions. Certainly, my thoughts will not take fully into account the
> thoughtful work that has been underway in the community in advance of CentOS
> 7.


Most people are new on here. This list was very low traffic before the
concept of SIG/variants. Don't hold back simply because you feel 'new'.

Similarly, the folks who speak up are the community voices we hear. We
(the board) can end up with tunnel vision or a skewed perception of how
things are being used if we don't get feedback. We may not agree. We may
do something you don't like, but your opinion WILL be fully heard.

TL;DR-> Please feel free to speak your mind on the list. Backing up your
points with facts/technical details makes it stronger, no matter how new
you are.



> That said, I hope you will permit a few observations.
> 
> The first is that it is very powerful for CentOS to maintain the simple
> message that it has had from the start - 100% compatibility with Red Hat
> Enterprise Linux. This is what allows people to use and trust it for running
> their organizations. The more CentOS feels exactly like "RHEL - but without
> support", the more people understand it and take stock. On the other hand,
> the more it feels different, the more people feel/fear that they should
> consider alternatives - maybe Scientific Linux, maybe non-RHEL
> distributions. They don't want to do this, but stability and dependability
> are key. Their businesses, and their reputations, are at stake. These are
> the exact concerns I heard expressed, unsolicited, from other attendees
> after the CentOS presentation at the Red Hat Summit in May. In particular,
> there was a great deal of confusion about SIGs/variants, what they were, how
> they would be implemented, and whether the introduction of variants would
> mean that CentOS would no longer be compatible with RHEL. Clearly, the goal
> is to maintain compatibility. But even small things that introduce
> differences create FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt).
> 
> The second is that, at an industry level, even minor inconsistencies, like
> versioning schemes, do more than just raise concerns, they introduce real
> impediments. OEMs test and certify their hardware for specific versions of
> RHEL. ISVs likewise test and certify their applications. Previously they
> could say "this hardware/software has been tested against RHEL 6.3".  And
> everyone knew this meant that CentOS 6.3 would work against it as well. But
> with a new versioning scheme, things are less clear.  Now, OEMs/ISVs need to
> say "compatible with RHEL 7.2/CentOS 1506". Or maybe they just say RHEL 7.2
> and users are left to translate this to CentOS versioning. But whether it is
> something OEMS/ISVs, or users do, why force there to be a translation at
> all? 
> 
> Seems better to work around issues with the RHEL versioning scheme than to
> let something that is already potentially confusing (variants) create
> tangible issues for existing users, and for the broader industry.

Agree, however appending to the 'RHEL' release schedule (7.1.xx) could
be misconstrued as RHEL's z-stream support offering. We were trying to
avoid confusion in that way.




-- 
Jim Perrin
The CentOS Project | http://www.centos.org
twitter: @BitIntegrity | GPG Key: FA09AD77