Le 19/12/2020 à 10:34, Mark Mielke a écrit : > On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 1:44 AM Karsten Wade <kwade at redhat.com> wrote: >> I wrote a blog post to share with you: >> >> https://blog.centos.org/2020/12/balancing-the-needs-around-the-centos-platform/ >> >> Below is a fair summary of the blog post, but I encourage you to read >> the whole thing for the context around the "availability gap" and the >> "openness gap": > Hi Karsten: > > It's good to hear your perspective. I understand you are trying to do > something noble and with value. > > However, these are significant reasons why CentOS Linux is superior to > CentOS Stream: > > 1. Bug-for-bug compatibility with RHEL. This is important or a variety > of reasons, particularly including reproducibility. If something works > in CentOS 8 Stream, but fails in RHEL 8, this, or if it works in RHEL > 8, but fails in CentOS 8 Stream, this means any testing efforts are > invalid. In strange cases which happen in real life - code that relies > on bugs will break if the bug is fixed. > > 2. Minor release milestones to stabilize branches. We have breakage > with most minor release upgrades, and the stabilization process is an > important method of isolating users from being affected by this. This > is why CentOS 8 Stream is being said "for developers", while RHEL 8 > would be "for production". It is being said, because it is a real > thing. If you truly believed minor release milestones were unnecessary > for CentOS 8 Stream, then you would also believe that minor release > milestones were unnecessary for RHEL 8. > > 3. CentOS brand. CentOS was just getting recognized by vendors as > existing by vendors who have install scripts and runtime scripts that > literally say things like "if /etc/system-release doesn't contain a > recognized string, then fail". I get questions like "can we use Ubuntu > or CentOS?" There is no guarantee that CentOS 8 Stream will be > recognized by these vendors ever. The term wishful thinking comes to > mind for me. > > I don't agree with you that CentOS cannot be two things. It's quite > normal for most projects to have an "upstream" and a "LTS" branch. > This seems like an after the fact justification for some compromises > that were made behind closed doors. > > I don't think this decision is in tune with what the CentOS users > want. CentOS 8 Stream addresses a set of requirements that CentOS did > not address previously, but it does so by abandoning the very reason > that CentOS existed in the first place. If you wanted to know for sure > - you would take a referendum. I think there is a reason why no > referendum was taken. > > Personally, I think: > > 1. CentOS 8 Stream should have been called RHEL 8 Stream. > 2. CentOS 8 should have continued to exist until a suitable > replacement was provided, with input from the community. > > The choice to make the decision without consultation with the > community, is a pretty major violation of trust. No matter the intent > - no matter the impossible situation you may have felt was thrust upon > you, to even act like CentOS belongs to the community would require > some sort of public discussion on the matter. By choosing to proceed > without this discussion, the people involved made it clear that the > opinion of the community does not matter to your decision making > process. > As I previously said, a fair way of doing things would have been : "Hey guys since we Red Hat have bought CentOS, making a downstream release of RHEL is just a nonsense, It costs us time and money we can save. So let's reverse the process and make RHEL a downstream of CentOS Linux. It will now be Fedora ELN - > CentOS Stream - > CentOS Linux - > RHEL." Red Hat would have kill all the clones by releasing CentOS Linux first, the Community would have been happy and not anger to help to get a better RHEL in the Stream process, and Red Hat folks could have put all the value of their brand and specificities in their final products, backed with a strong ecosystem they could have controlled. Jean-Marc