[CentOS-devel] CentOS 7 and release numbering

On 06/21/2014 01:02 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 06/21/2014 05:32 AM, Ned Slider wrote:
>> On 21/06/14 02:37, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>>> On 06/20/2014 04:50 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> But, as far as I could understand, changing 7.0 to 7.20140620 (or what
>>>> ever date) and changing NOTHING ELSE?, as it was suggested, it would not
>>>> change a thing.
>>> You are EXACTLY right ... it will not change anything about the distro
>>> at all .. EXCEPT be a better description of what CentOS is.  A point in
>>> time rebuild of the major branch.  It has the "major" and it has the
>>> "point in time".  It perfectly describes exactly what CentOS is.
>>>
>>>> It was clearly said that there will not be any
>>>> intermittent releases in between 7.0 and 7.1 for example, so this change
>>>> should only be a PR stunt, and all that comes to mind is that Red Hat
>>>> would like to brake a bond between RHEL and CentOS and convert it into
>>>> another staging area, "learn how to work with CentOS and then you can
>>>> switch to RHEL", and to, in doing so, reduce the number of companies who
>>>> will dare to use CentOS instead of RHEL.
>> So here we have the essence of the issue, clearly described.
>>
>> It may be "a better description of what CentOS is" but it's also is a
>> step further removed from RHEL. It's making a change that isn't a direct
>> consequence of legal or trademark issues.
>>
>> So there is no technical issue to solve or overcome, in the core distro.
>> It's a rebranding exercise to overcome a perception people may or may
>> not have about point releases.
>>
>> As many others have said, I believe such a change does more damage than
>> good for all the reasons previously mentioned numerous times.
>
> But, CentOS started out with different numbering that Red Hat.  They
> were doing 3 update 3 and not 3.3.  They usually  abbreviated it 3u3 and
> not 3.3.  We were different because we did not necessarily want to
> convey we did everything, only that we were similar at that one point in
> time.  Then Red Hat changed their numbering.  So CentOS and Red Hat did
> not always have the same numbering.
>
> CentOS still grew to become the most used Linux distribution in the
> world and Twitter, Facebook, GoDaddy, and any other number of companies
> still chose to use it for their needs.  It is in use in colleges all
> over the world.  In movie maker rendering farms.  The number did not
> have to be the same for those things to happen.  It does not have to be
> the same now either.  If CentOS was identical, over the lifetime of the
> product, then I would want it to be numbered the same.  But it is not
> the same, so why do we want the same number?
>
> Now I see confusion in the name that I would like to resolve, and at the
> release of a completely new main branch seems the perfect time to do
> it.  So everyone thinks that 7.1406 better describes what a CentOS
> release really is, but they don't want to do it.  Interesting.
>

Johnny, I have more vivid imagination then most people. I can think of 
all different possible outcomes. That helps me to do what I do best, 
find best solutions to the problem at hand, even if people with the 
problem do not see it.

So that story telling I wrote had a purpose. That is most far fetched 
story I could muster, but it is also what many in Linux community will 
be thinking. It does not matter what you guys really think or do, but it 
matters what will PEOPLE think. And you can not control what they will 
think, no matter how hard you try.

When you guys were hired by Rad Hat, I saw it as a good thing for you 
and your dedication. BUT, that does not mean you could not be 
manipulated into some things. Setting someones mind in the desired 
direction is not that hard as people think. So this not my vote of 
non-confidence, just show of confusion you are producing in CentOS 
community. It is better your board to be confronted with this possible 
scenario now then after "s**t hits the fan".

First of all, ALL of the blogs refer to RHEL minor versions as 5.10, 
6.5, 7.0, etc. It is easier to think in those terms, to "normalize the 
situation". All Linux distributions use this versioning schemes. Maybe 
you even were "godfathers" to that unofficial naming, but it stuck with 
public. I will say it again, RHEL! minor version are referred to as 6.5, 
not 6u5 by almost all non-Red Hat people in Linux Community. It's like 
carved in stone. There is no way anyone will start calling it 6u5.

Same goes to a link between CentOS and RHEL minor versions. CentOS 6.5 = 
RHEL 6.5 (with very small changes that can not be avoided). Also carved 
in stone. It will not change in 20 years, maybe never is everything 
stays the same. And everyone like it that way.


So changing versioning scheme will brake that bond between RHEL and 
CentOS as it's CLONE! Something people are COUNTING on. many do not have 
money for RHEL, but want it's stability and want to use apps that work 
on RHEL. So they are counting on that unbreakable bond, link, they like 
the idea of CentOS being 99% clone of RHEL.

As soon as you change versioning scheme, that bond in peoples minds 
would be broken, and almost-all would see it as just another RHEL 
lookalike, but not CLONE, just like SuSE and OpenSuSE. If before RHEL -> 
CentOS relation was close to MS-DOS Original -> Pirated MS-DOS, after 
change it would be more like MS-DOS -> PC-DOS, similar, claimed to do 
what ever exactly the same, BUT, in peoples minds there will be doubt 
wedged between RHEL and CentOS. Even I would FEEL so, no matter how my 
mind would try to convince me.


The main problem in perception is that you do not want to change 
anything else. THAT is part that is evoking emotional response into 
thinking there is something else behind it.

Example (dates are arbitrary):
7.0 -> 7.20140621
7.1 -> 7.20140910

When 7.20140910 comes out, system of updates will be the same. 
7.20140621 branch will go into vault, rpms from updates repo will be 
merged to 7.20140910 and "yum update" will update system to 7.20140910 + 
latest updates. If some image needs to stay on 7.20140621, it will NOT 
be able to, update will move it along to next minor version. So nothing 
is gained.

If you were, prior to 7.20140910, to release 7.20140909, which would be 
7.20140621 + all the updates to that point all in one repository (Fedora 
Everything?), then versioning change would have some purpose.
But on the other hand, if you want to create base+updates snapshots in 
time, I would prefer if we would keep 7.0, 7.1 versioning for normal 
usage, and then create such snapshots 7.20140909 with accompanying 
repositories which would be filled with only security fixes?

Keep in mind that most of "old" users (using only single/unrelated 
server(s)/desktop(s)) want to keep everything the same, that is what we 
"signed on" by choosing CentOS.

Cloud images, SiG's, that is what interests only/mostly "new" users with 
much higher technical knowledge. High enough to know how to keep their 
systems the way they want them.

Any change to another direction then it was so far should be ADDITION to 
existing practice, not something to turn things upside down and chase 
away old users.

-- 
Ljubomir Ljubojevic
(Love is in the Air)
PL Computers
Serbia, Europe

StarOS, Mikrotik and CentOS/RHEL/Linux consultant