[CentOS-devel] CentOS 7 and release numbering

On 06/21/2014 01:31 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
> On 06/21/2014 06:56 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>>> Just to emphasize, people want COMPATIBILITY with RHEL, that is why we
>>> use it. If there will be no PERCEIVED compatibility, people will start
>>> waling away from CentOS. As simple as that.
>> And the CentOS goal is full functional compatibility.
>>
>> We do now have and will continue to have that.
>>
>> Changing a number in the name does not impact that at all ... it just
>> means we are trying to better describe what CentOS is.
>>
> That IS the point over board and users are arguing about. Just like 
> "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", so is the "truth" what something 
> is or isn't. All of users are trying to PRESERVE what was established. 
> We do not think CentOS should be redefined just because of minority that 
> uses apps that are meant for certain point-in-time.
>
> So if you choose to keep with this PR nightmare, be ready to have 
> diminishing membership, instead of increasing it. That is at least what 
> vast majority of us, majority of community, on this list think. If you 
> were to conduct referendum on this issue, I think 99% of CentOS users 
> would vote against.
>
> And then, to the all that follow this, it would look like selected few, 
> now on the payroll of company that has vested interest in future of 
> CentOS distro/project will go against will of vast majority of projects 
> community, and play in the hand of that same company and it's profits.
>
> While we are at it, why is Red Hat owner of "centos.org" domain name?
> And why is the Red Hat owner of CentOS trademark? "The CentOS Project is 
> a community project. The CentOS Project leadership has transferred the 
> CentOS trademark to Red Hat for protection and stewardship. The CentOS 
> Governing Board will be responsible for policing use of the mark."
>
> Who voted on it? Larger Community hasn't.
>
> In fact, up to this point I thought CentOS is just joining forces with 
> Red Hat. But text of the announcement says "The new initiative is going 
> to be overseen by the new CentOS Governing Board." So this is actually 
> NEW project that will claim CentOS name, but will not continue as 
> CentOS, but in fat will be OpenRHEL. Only when I put together 2 and 2, 
> Boards intention to remove OpenRHEL from CentOS that existed until 
> January did I understood that my arbitrary story about what might happen 
> is actually right.
>
> Whois on centos.org:
>
> Registrant Contact Information:
>      Name: Red Hat, Inc.
>      Organization: Red Hat, Inc.
>      Address 1: 100 East Davie Street
>      City: Raleigh
>      State: NC
>      Zip: 27601
>      Country: US
>      Phone: +1.9197543700
>      Fax: +1.9197543704
>      Email: Email Masking Image at redhat.com
>
> Administrative Contact Information:
>      Name: Domain Admin
>      Organization: Red Hat, Inc.
>      Address 1: 1801 Varsity Drive
>      City: Raleigh
>      State: NC
>      Zip: 27606
>      Country: US
>      Phone: +1.9197543700
>      Fax: +1.9197543704
>      Email: Email Masking Image at redhat.com
>
> Technical Contact Information:
>      Name: Domain Admin
>      Organization: Red Hat, Inc.
>      Address 1: 100 East Davie Street
>      City: Raleigh
>      State: NC
>      Zip: 27601
>      Country: US
>      Phone: +1.9197543700
>      Fax: +1.9197543704
>      Email: Email Masking Image at redhat.com
>
>
> In light of this new revelation, if you go on with the change, count me 
> out of any further contributing. I will continue to use it, but will 
> welcome any attempt to restore old CentOS even under some other name.
>
>

What revelation ... Red Hat is now paying for the domain registration. 
We (the Project) don't have any money, we never have.  Stuff costs
money.  We either get someone to sponsor our domain registrations,
servers we build on, servers we mirror on ... or we pay for it out of
our own pockets.  That is the way it has been since the beginning.  Not
only have I spent the time I mentioned before in this thread, I have
personally spent several thousand dollars of my own money over the last
10 years to purchase hardware or go to conferences to promote CentOS,
etc.  Karanbir has spent even more time and money than I have.  All this
stuff you get for free has cost me dearly over the years in both time
and money.  At one point it almost coast me my marriage.

We have opened up the entire process for the 7 distro to the community. 
We have the git repo completely open for public consumption at
git.centos.org.

Every build log, built RPM, built SRPM (for those who would rather use
those) is available here:

http://buildlogs.centos.org/

You can look at the packages in our build root for every build, see the
result of every test that the RPM did while it built, etc.  We have
never been more open or forthcoming.

Not only that, but every mock config used is published here for the build:

https://git.centos.org/summary/sig-core!bld-seven.git

Every script we are using to do things with the git tree is here:

https://git.centos.org/summary/centos-git-common.git

We could not possibly be more open ... you have never been able to see
so much about the distro before or how compatible it is or is not.

There is nothing to hide here, absolutely everything is out in the
open.  No one else in the EL space is even close to this level of
openness.  That doesn't even include the discussions on the lists.

Then we did all the QA completely open, the branding search was
completely open.

The process we use to build has not changed ... but now you can
absolutely see every part of it.

How we build docker images ... open, right here:

https://git.centos.org/summary/sig-cloud-instance!build-instance.git

How do we do our comps.xml or live media, open and right here:

https://git.centos.org/project/sig-core

We are being completely open with everything and as such we think we
should also be completely open about things like binary compatibility
and the name.  Giving something the exact same name implies certain
things, not all of which are true.  Saying something is binary (or bit
for bit) compatible also implies certain things.

All we are trying to do here is be completely honest and complete open
about the distro as a whole and the process to get it as a whole.  So
now everything is open, you can see everything about it all, and a
number after the decimal point in the name and/or the difference in the
word Binary and Functional is enough to make you mistrust something that
you have been using for free for ten years?


-------------- 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/20140622/5a4cba44/attachment-0003.sig>