On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 6:13 PM Mark Mielke <mark.mielke at gmail.com> wrote: > The problem with this conclusion, is that you are ignoring the reality > of approximately (in the example of something reaching RHEL X.Y): > > 1) RHEL Master (days?) -> RHEL X.N+2 Staging (weeks to months)-> RHEL > X.N+1 Staging or Beta (weeks to months) -> RHEL X.N Stable (weeks to > months) -> CentOS X.N Stable (weeks to months) > > And the claim of several people on this is that the following is "no big deal": > > 1) RHEL Master (days?) -> CentOS X Stream (days?) > > So you can say that CentOS only has one branch - but that is only if > you ignore what processes and gates existed prior to that branch. I > think the conclusion that CentOS 7 was just one branch is misleading > at the very least, and false in the only picture that matters. I presumed everybody understood this, but perhaps I was in an error. In order to ensure we are all on the same page here, let's consider a real-life scenario. https://access.redhat.com/articles/3078 This shows: RHEL 8.3 - 4.18.0-240 RHEL 8.2 - 4.18.0-193 RHEL 8.1 - 4.18.0-147 Let's pick RHEL 8.2 as an example. Once the release was branched, it enters a stabilization and testing period ("staging" period where it remains private, and then a "beta" period where it might be formally announced and made available to the public). During this time - upstream has already moved on with -194, -195, -196, ... eventually reached -240 for RHEL 8.3. If any problems are encountered during this stabilization period or during the life of the minor release, or - if any high priority bug fix, such as a security fix becamse available upstream and are important enough to backport, then *only* the changes necessary will be backported. In the RHEL 8.2 case, this would become 4.18.0-193.x. In the case of CentOS 8.2, this included: https://vault.centos.org/8.2.2004/BaseOS/Source/SPackages/kernel-4.18.0-193.el8.src.rpm https://vault.centos.org/8.2.2004/BaseOS/Source/SPackages/kernel-4.18.0-193.1.2.el8_2.src.rpm https://vault.centos.org/8.2.2004/BaseOS/Source/SPackages/kernel-4.18.0-193.6.3.el8_2.src.rpm https://vault.centos.org/8.2.2004/BaseOS/Source/SPackages/kernel-4.18.0-193.14.2.el8_2.src.rpm https://vault.centos.org/8.2.2004/BaseOS/Source/SPackages/kernel-4.18.0-193.19.1.el8_2.src.rpm https://vault.centos.org/8.2.2004/BaseOS/Source/SPackages/kernel-4.18.0-193.28.1.el8_2.src.rpm Upgrades within the minor release, such as .14.2 -> .19.1, would be considered "safer", because rather than picking up *all* the upstream changes - only the changes that were considered important enough, and safe enough, to backport to the RHEL 8.2 stream, were made available in RHEL 8.2, and then made available in CentOS 8.2. With CentOS 8 Stream, none of the above happens any more. Instead, you will get -241, -242, -243, -244, ... there is no stable version. There is no baseline to align against or certify against. There is only "LATEST". Your choice is to pick up "LATEST", or stay behind. No security patches. No important bug fixes. You must stay exactly where you are until *all* of your vendors provide support for the new kernel. In many cases, such as user space API, the public interfaces make an attempt to be forwards and backwards compatible. However, in many cases - this fails. If I build something for EL 8.2, it will *probably* work in EL 8.3. However, if I build something in EL 8.3, there is no guarantee it will work in EL 8.2. The kernel is particularly problematic, because the kernel API is not covered by the same compatibility criteria, and things like EL 7.5 can introduced updates to the VFS layer to support OverlayFS, and then break any systems that hook into the VFS layer, such as in our case for RHEL 7.5 - IBM Rational ClearCase. Consequently, we need to wait for IBM to produce a version of ClearCase that supports RHEL 7.5, which is only normally expected 90 days after RHEL 7.5 is released. This same thing happens all over EL. It's actually difficult for me to comprehend that people think this is no big deal, but I understand that for me this is a regular problem, and for many of the people posting, it seems you may not be fully aware. But, I think I'm describing a problem that is known to a majority of the users of EL, but perhaps not to the developers of CentOS, and this may be the fundamental problem of how everything went wrong. -- Mark Mielke <mark.mielke at gmail.com>