[CentOS-devel] Before You Get Mad About The CentOS Stream Change, Think About…

On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 6:49 PM Japheth Cleaver <cleaver at terabithia.org>
wrote:

> On 12/15/2020 6:18 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 5:42 PM Mauricio Tavares <raubvogel at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 6:30 PM Jason Brooks <jbrooks at redhat.com> wrote:
>> >
>> [...]
>> > No. I was on that team too, and growing CentOS beyond just consumption
>> > and into contribution was something we emphasized throughout. Our
>> > primary intent, the reason the whole thing got started, was that we
>> > needed to provide our layered projects with a slow-moving community
>> > distro to layer atop. That's why we put so much effort into the SIGs,
>> > and into opening up the build processes and tools. Even with that work
>> > done, until we opened up RHEL development itself, contributions to the
>> > core of CentOS were basically blocked. Now, in addition to the layered
>> > project need, which hasn't gone away, we need a distro to open up RHEL
>> > development, and CentOS Stream is that distro.
>> >
>>       Isn't that what fedora is used for?
>
>
> Fedora is used as a starting point for major release alphas and betas,
> i.e., 7.0 Beta, 8.0 Beta, etc.  After the major release beta comes out all
> automatic connection between Fedora and RHEL ceases.  RHEL 8.2 was based on
> 8.1 + upstream changes, 8.1 was based on 8.0 plus upstream changes.  There
> simply hasn't been a place where people outside the Red Hat firewall can
> see, use, and influence the direction of the next minor release, as it is
> being created.  That's what Stream is meant to do.
>
> Minor release updates very rarely have a need for significant influence,
> but I'm unsure how this is supposed to relate to actual RHEL minor version
> Beta releases.
>
That's a very interesting and unexpected standpoint.  Do you only use the
features present in the .0 release?

> Will there still even be RHEL 8.x Beta Releases?
>
 We have one planned for 8.4.  In the future, who knows?

> But beyond that, the above statement does not seem to be compatible with
> the following:
> On 12/15/2020 3:35 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>
> You guys keep calling it beta .. it is not.
>
> The RHEL team is not grabbing brand new software (like the do in
> Rawhide, for example) and trying to roll that into RHEL.  They are going
> to do one of three type of updates.
>
> 1) A security update
>
> 2) A bugfix update.
>
> 3) An Enhancement update.
>
> For #1 and #2 .. you want those rolled in and you want them rolled in
> ASAP.  RHEAs do not make up that many of the updates.  You are getting
> these after QA testing a couple months early at most.
>
> There's no meaningful "influence" at this point beyond filing BZs about
> things that break. While that's certainly better than nothing, if RedHat
> wanted to accept bugs from non-RHEL binaries, especially in-house rebuilds
> explicitly targeting 100% binary compatibility, it could easily have done
> so at any point in the past.
>
> There's still a conflation of upstream and downstream here. The
> "direction" of any aspect of RHEL is already going to be quite set by the
> time it gets into CentOS Stream... as is appropriate for a downstream.
>
I think you've succinctly expressed that we have not done a good enough job
of painting and sustaining a picture of the potential breadth of CentOS
Stream and what it could mean to add additional facets to the community's
self identity.

-- 
Brendan Conoboy / Linux Project Lead / Red Hat, Inc.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20201215/cb195e5a/attachment.html>