[CentOS-devel] CentOS 8/7.7

Karanbir Singh

kbsingh at centos.org
Tue Sep 10 12:56:36 UTC 2019

hi Akshay,

I am going to guess your question is about CentOS Linux 8 and not 7 (
since all content for 7 is already posted ).

Since I've had a voice on this side, CentOS-4'ish timeframe, have tried
to make sure we dont ship something that isnt good-enough( ie, fair
quality, consumeable, deliverable, sustainable ). This has meant delays
as we work through challenges. We -do- have a great community and QA
team, and we've had awesome progress working through the bootstrap, as
was visible and reported publicly. But we have not been able to close
the last mile as fast as we would have liked, should not be taken as
were not trying to.

Over the last few weeks the CentOS board, Core SIG and QA teams have
been working flat out to get us to a good-enough point to release and
move forward, its just taking time.

Apprecaite the vote of confidence. And this list will be the first (
well, maybe centos-mirror will! ) to know as we move forward.

w.r.t the IBM question, I cant answer for them. Your best bet is to
reach out to the PR and Communication channels for IBM in your region
etc, and ask them.

disclaimer: While I do work for Red Hat, my role as project lead for
CentOS Project is removed from my dayjob and scope/role. My comments
here are presented as my role in the CentOS project.

On 10/09/2019 13:08, Akshay Kumar wrote:
> Easy to put this all to bed if someone just updates folks on what the
> current status is. Can you just categorically state this is not related
> to the IBM acquisition and put an end to all these conspiracy theories?
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 12:24 PM Jeffrey Layton <laytonjb at gmail.com
> <mailto:laytonjb at gmail.com>> wrote:
>     I've been using CentOS for a long time and love it! Thanks for all
>     of the hard work, long hours, and lack of sleep. Also thanks to the
>     mailing list - lots of great questions and answers. This is a great
>     place to even get general Linux questions answered. There are
>     precious few places where this is possible.
>     However, I have to admit that 4 months for CentOS is a bit longer
>     than usual. I know that once it is out, everything will be fine. To
>     be honest, 4 months is too long for my needs. I went ahead and
>     bought RHEL 8.0. I hated spending money on it since it felt like I
>     was betraying CentOS but I just couldn't wait any longer. Sorry CentOS.
>     But one person pointed out to me that perhaps Red Hat, since it
>     "owns" CentOS, may actually want to delay it to get people, like me,
>     to buy RHEL. I think this is a little too conspiracy for me, but you
>     have to admit that the longer it is held up, the greater the
>     possibility people will buy RHEL. I'm in the HPC world so spending a
>     bunch of money for RHEL for every node in the cluster is not likely
>     to happen so CentOS has an advantage there. The HPC world will wait
>     for CentOS.
>     Thank you CentOS team and thanks for all of the hard work.
>     Jeff
>     On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 11:11 AM victor mason <vm2196 at gmail.com
>     <mailto:vm2196 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>         What's the hold up on both of these? Are we back to the old days?
>         https://linux.slashdot.org/story/09/07/30/130249/CentOS-Project-Administrator-Goes-AWOL
>         The whole point of setting the update page
>         at https://wiki.centos.org/About/Building_8 was so people didn't
>         constantly ask about release dates. Redirecting queries there is
>         completely fair if someone updates the damn thing. It's now been
>         a few weeks with complete radio silence.
>         It's been 4 months since RHEL8 was released and we are coming
>         over a month for 7.7 with a bunch of security updates piling up.
>         Nobody from the outside who depends on this has any visibility
>         into it and it's frustrating. Is this an IBM thing? What the
>         hell is going on?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20190910/2d9b34d0/attachment-0002.sig>

More information about the CentOS-devel mailing list