[CentOS-devel] CentOS 7 and release numbering

On 06/20/2014 08:52 AM, Alessandro Ren wrote:
>    Johnny,
>
> I dont think anyone lacks confidence in your work or in CentOS and everybody appreciate the time you've dedicated to the project.
>    I my self have not yet clearly understood the real idea behind the new versioning system and I really dont know why the classic model would not work.
>    I think the main success of the project is being closely related to RHE.
>    My main concern is the risk of not keeping with the last security updates or not seeing them as clearly due to the new versioning.
>
>    []s.

I said at the beginning of this topic, but I will say it again here as
clearly as I can ...

Red Hat has a tree ... we can pick any one, I'll use 6.4 as an example.

When Red Hat releases 6.4 they release an ISO set and a tree. Red Hat
splits their tree up into several versions, for which they can charge
varying amounts of money  (Server, Workstation, HPC Node, Client, etc). 
CentOS has no need for these designations and we flatten it out into one
main repo .. since everything is free in CentOS.  We have groups that
mimic the functionality of those segments.

So, at the time of release, other than the things we purposely do not
build (install numbers for the ISOs, RHN subscription items) the version
numbers match up almost exactly as we use the source from RHEL to make
CentOS.

The differences between the Red Hat and CentOS trees start to happen
AFTER the next release.

When 6.5 comes out, we again use the RHEL source code and do our thing
... and we take the 6.4 tree out of production and put it in our vault. 
This is because Red Hat does not publicly release changes for that tree
anymore.  However, behind the scenes, Red Hat does do changes to that
tree for their paying customers.  The release updates for that 6.4 tree
for up to 3 years.  This is something they have always done and
something CentOS has never been able to do.  Those things are going to
continue in the future as well, Red Hat makes the source code publicly
available for the "Current" tree and we will continue to consume it. 
They will not make available the code for the extended parts of the
tree, just like before.

So, if one is using RHEL and wants to stay on the 6.4 tree, you can and
you can still get updates.  If one is using CentOS and wants to stay on
our 6.4 tree, you get no updates.

So, for all periods outside the active time that a tree is live, the
CentOS 6.4 tree is radically different than the RHEL 6.4 tree.  That is
the issue I want to address.  CentOS 6.4 does not equal RHEL 6.4 ... and
it is especially tree after the 6.5 release.  I think that there is
obviously an issue in perception that people think they can stay on an
old tree and get the same thing they would in RHEL,, and they can't. 
They can't on CentOS ... they can't on Scientific Linux, they can't on
any of the rebuilds.

Now, we have had people say it is a strawmnan issue, even here on this
list  .. but if we can change the perception AND more accurately portray
what a CentOS point release really is (a point in time release of the
main tree) by changing the way we talk about the name ... while leaving
the content of the distro exactly as it is, then why would we not want
to do that.

The only thing I can think of is that some people actually WANT to
misrepresent what the point release actually is.  That some people
actually want users to think that 6.4 CentOS and 6.4 RHEL are actually
the same thing ... which they are not.  They are similar for a period of
time and then radically different later.

How is what I said inaccurate? 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20140620/d157d711/attachment-0003.sig>