On 12/20/20 8:55 PM, Mark Mielke wrote: > On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 11:40 PM Gordon Messmer <gordon.messmer at gmail.com> wrote: >> Is it the word "test" that you associate with beta? Because *of course* >> you should test a product before you deploy it. You should also test >> your software on RHEL before you deploy it. That doesn't make RHEL a >> beta, it's just a part of you doing due diligence with your own >> configuration. > RHEL 7: We will start from 78.3, because we are a responsible > Enterprise Linux company, and we work with the Firefox ESR team, and > we understand that 78.3 is the version that should be used to replace > 68. As far as I can tell, when Red Hat updated Firefox 45 to 52, they started with 52.0. When they updated from 52 to 60, they started with 60.1 (ESR channel users weren't updated until 60.2). When they updated from 60 to 68, they started with 68.1 (ESR channel users weren't updated until 68.2). When they updated from 68 to 78, they started with 78.4: https://vault.centos.org/7.3.1611/updates/Source/SPackages/ https://vault.centos.org/7.5.1804/updates/Source/SPackages/ https://vault.centos.org/7.7.1908/updates/Source/SPackages/ https://vault.centos.org/7.9.2009/updates/Source/SPackages/ https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/enterprise/2019-October/001869.html https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/enterprise/2018-September/000246.html I'm not sure where to find the Firefox enterprise list archives from March 2017, but I don't see anything that supports the idea that Mozilla has ever described the initial ESR releases as betas, and I don't see anything to support the idea that Red Hat keeps the same release schedule as Mozilla. I think you're cherry picking data to build your argument and attributing *your* motivations to other people without cause. > Gordon: I see no problem with CentOS 7 Stream strategy. Seems fine to > me. What's wrong? You're right, here. I don't see a problem with it.