On 09/06/14 15:33, Jim Perrin wrote: > > > On 06/09/2014 03:12 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote: > <snip> > > >> AS for the "definition" of change, It was made simple by devel guys. >> There can not be no changes, beside most necessary, that distance CentOS >> from RHEL. What RHEL publishes CentOS must also publish, with only as >> minimal as possible changes. CentOS distro is not allowed to carry any >> 3rd party repo files because RHEL does not have them, and CentOS project >> strives to be binary compatible with RHEL. > > We're not talking about significant (or really even trivial) code > changes here. We have no intention of breaking compatibility with 3rd > party repos or software tied to a specific version with this. This is > simply planning to avoid painting ourselves into a corner. > > As an aside here, some of the sig work is specifically in response to > what the community (and RH) is doing. Ami development, docker > containers, xen etc all came about because of community/user demand. > These days it simply isn't enough to just rebuild as we did in the past. > > >> And then suddenly, after CentOS Project members get payed by Red Hat >> CentOS project starts looking like Fedora respins, braking with RHEL >> numeration, CentOS distro becomes experimental platform for software Red >> Hat wants to push for better market share via respins, and we are left >> explaining to every single newbie why that had to be done. > > > We were working on Xen4CentOS before any discussions with RH. RH > providing (some of) us with a paycheck has simply meant we have more > time to focus on the distribution instead of having late-night > coffee-fueled work sessions after the family's gone to bed. > > >> If SiG's are going to be so problematic, then they can devise their own >> versioning scheme, because if they are going to create such difference >> from core CentOS distro then just call them CentOS-like distro's and be >> done with it. They are either CentOS with 3rd party repositories or will >> be just using SOME CentOS-produced packages for better use of available >> resources. Period. >> >> > > I want to see CentOS grow in usage and become much more widely adopted. > That can't happen by ONLY doing the same things we've done for the last > decade. > > > It's nice that the board has a vision Jim, but what can grow can also shrink too. If we recall, it wasn't that long ago that the very continued existence / viability of CentOS was in question. Releases were delayed, security updates were slow to be released, bugs went unanswered. If community members questioned or asked when releases / security updates might be expected it was deemed as criticism and shot down in flames. To the Project's immense credit, you guys have worked extremely hard to turn around that situation to the point where things now operate very smoothly and we almost expect updates to flow right out of the pipe within hours of an upstream release. To that end, the Project's future looks more stable (although I still know admins who were so concerned they switched to SL and have no intention of coming back). But I think there still exists a perception of mistrust / suspicion within the community. I think there is concern that Red Hat might wish to dilute the notion that CentOS == RHEL - branding. Altering / changing something perceptually fundamental as the release numbering simply reinforces this notion at a time when many users are looking for the board to give assurances and build trust. Maybe the board isn't feeling this? Maybe the board needs to slow down a little, listen to it's user base and earn it's trust? Maybe the board will just do as it pleases anyway?