On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 12:29 PM Matthew Miller <mattdm at mattdm.org> wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 04:34:53AM -0500, Mark Mielke wrote: > > 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. > > It's important to note that the CentOS Linux rebuild never actually had > this. RHEL minor releases are actually branches, and you can stay at a minor > release and still get security updates. For CentOS Linux, a minor release is > a point where updates pause for a while while the team scrambles to rebuild > a large update of many packages and then those packages all updated in a big > chunk _on the single CentOS branch_. So this is always been extra value that > Red Hat Enterprise Linux provides that CentOS Linux did not Am I missing something? The last time I stared at RHEL release media the packages and their versions were a one-for-one match to the CentOs point release, except for the CentOS-only packages such as "epel-release" and packages with distinct trademarks or licenses. It's been a couple of years since I grabbed RHEL release media, I usually use a licensed RHEL OS image as needed these days. Are you saying the CentOS point releases do *not* match as closely as possible the corresponding RHEL point release?