On 12/20/20 7:19 PM, Mark Mielke wrote: > On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 6:34 PM Gordon Messmer <gordon.messmer at gmail.com> wrote: >> On 12/19/20 8:27 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: >>> On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 12:29 PM Matthew Miller <mattdm at mattdm.org> wrote: >>>> 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. >>> Are you saying the >>> CentOS point releases do *not* match as closely as possible the >>> corresponding RHEL point release? >> No, no one is saying that. Matthew said that you can stay at a minor >> release of RHEL and still get security updates. CentOS does not offer that. > This is not correct. Please stop saying it. CentOS is bug-for-bug > compatible with RHEL for *active* releases. CentOS is compatible with the current release. I don't think anyone is saying that it isn't. I honestly can't figure out why you're telling me that I'm wrong and then arguing what seems to be a completely different point. Unless... > You and Matthew are confusing RHEL with RHEL EUS. Are you objecting because you think that RHEL and RHEL EUS are different products? I would have described EUS as a different support contract for the same product, but at that point you're *really* parsing words carefully. >> Mark is confusing the issue somewhat. I *think* he is trying to say >> that when we say that CentOS point releases have no branches, we're >> saying that there's no QA, which is absolutely not what we're saying. >> We're not talking about the back end development process, we're talking >> about the products that are delivered to customers. Customers can >> choose what branch of the RHEL product to deploy on their systems, and >> how long to use a given point release. CentOS users don't get that >> level of support. > This is also false. Moving CentOS from "downstream" to "upstream" > absolutely affects where QA fits into the process. This is a > fundamental thing that is being ripped out from under you - and you > don't even realize. I think that your position here implies that end-users who run beta releases are responsible for the quality of Red Hat's releases, and I don't know any reason to believe that. In particular, Red Hat employees tell us that "literally almost nobody uses them": http://crunchtools.com/before-you-get-mad-about-the-centos-stream-change-think-about/ I don't have any reason to disbelieve that, so when I think about how Red Hat is able to manage a high-quality release, I tend to think that it's because they have a rigorous testing process for the software they distribute, and they have repeatedly told us in this list that CentOS Stream updates will have gone through that process.