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-0005.html>