On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 3:09 PM Kevin Fenzi <kevin at scrye.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 11:28:39AM -0400, Mason Loring Bliss wrote: > > I'm pretty sure I understand the workflow, or what will be the workflow, for > > CentOS Stream and RHEL, but there's one thing I'm curious about that I'd love > > to have clarified, at least to the extent that it's been planned or thought > > about so far: > > > > Historically, a major release of RHEL has been cut from Fedora and polished up > > (or chopped down or...) but now that CentOS Stream exists, I can see several > > paths forward. > > > > One possibility I envision is that CStream will progress at about the same > > pace as RHEL point releases today, which would suggest that when it comes time > > to branch something for RHEL 9, that might once again be Fedora, with the > > branch then being a major release of CStream that'll be polished into what > > will be released as RHEL 9.0. > > Yep. See: > https://fedoramagazine.org/fedora-and-centos-stream/ > "Fedora will remain the first upstream of RHEL. It’s where every RHEL > came from, and is where RHEL 9 will come from, too. But after RHEL > branches off, CentOS will be upstream for ongoing work on those RHEL > versions." It sounds like extra work to maintain an intermediate release between RHEL and Fedora. It also sounds like an attempt to bring EPEL projects in house, which has been tried before and often broken stable software. I refer to ansible, and most recently python 3.6. > > Another possibility is that CStream will move somewhat quicker, with point > > releases over time covering more ground, somewhat obviating the notion of a > > major release - but this would conflict with the notion of a stable platform > > for vendors and partners to use as a long-lived base for their products, so I > > suspect it's not the answer. > > Right. It's not as far as I know. > > A third possibility is that when RHEL 8 slows down [1] and there wouldn't > > normally be another point release of it, CStream will pick up pace and make > > bigger changes until it rolls forward to where RHEL 9 will pick up. This is > > the one I'm hoping for personally, as it would keep CStream as a continuous > > rolling release, and appropriate for situations where you'd want a rolling > > release. (There's no official equivalent to Leapp for CentOS, but this would > > mean that CStream wouldn't need one.) > > I don't think this is intended/possible. Well, it's software. A great deal is possible. It doesn't seem likely since it would get in trouble, pretty fast, with compatibility with the "base" release. > At some point RHEL9 will branch off Fedora, and at some point after that > I would image there would be a new centos 9 stream that appears (after 9 > beta? before? not sure). Centos 8 stream would keep tracking the 8.x > point releases. I'm betting money that Red Hat will elect to rename the OS, much as they renamed and released "RHEL 2" instead of "Red Hat 10", and much as Sun elected to release "Solaris 2" rather than "SunOS 5",. and much as the Java developers have gone "bowling for version numbers" with Java releases. I'm somewhat cynical from hard-won experience, but it's a big temptation as a software platform gets older to want to "change identity" and "take ownership" by changing the name with vendors.