[CentOS-devel] What should I do in my cluster? CentOS streams dilemma.

Sat Dec 26 00:15:45 UTC 2020
Mike McGrath <mmcgrath at redhat.com>

On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 5:27 PM redbaronbrowser via CentOS-devel <
centos-devel at centos.org> wrote:

> On Friday, December 25, 2020 5:05 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic <centos at plnet.rs>
> wrote:
> > On 12/25/20 9:02 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> >
> > > On 12/25/20 5:24 AM, redbaronbrowser via CentOS-devel wrote:
> > >
> > > > Con of using CentOS Stream is it .. packages will be released before
> > > > getting the same level of QA of RHEL 8 or CentOS 8.
> > >
> > > Several Red Hat and CentOS engineers have said that each CentOS Stream
> > > package will have passed QA before they are published.
> >
> > And Red Hat executives said nothing will change for CentOS Linux and
> > here we are (YMMV) ...
> Actually, if you read carefully statements made by Karsten Wade and Johnny
> Hughes, it appears they still believe technically nothing has changed for
> the majority of users.
> I would be willing to accept that Stream has the potential to fit the
> needs of CentOS 8 users.  That isn't the change that bothers me.
> What bothers me is the level of disrespect for foundational promises made
> to the community.

> They have been pushing that "a lot of people" were involved in this
> decision.  That is not the same as being *public*.  That is not the same as
> being *transparent*.
> What exactly was said to decide Dec 31, 2021 is the date instead of June
> 30, 2024 to be in line with CentOS 7?
> What was Brian "Bex" Exelbierd from the RHEL team doing there?  What did
> he say?
> It seems we will never know for sure.  I can *imagine* what was said and I
> am getting really close to posting my *imaginary* transcript but that also
> is not a good replacement for the real transcript.
> It has been reiterated that this was a hard decision for everyone
> involved.  That might be true.  But how hard is it to keep the promises
> made about how CentOS Governance would work once joined with Red Hat?  How
> hard is it to honor the claim there would be a firewall between CentOS and

I think the problem is that the document you are quoting is simply just out
of date.

If you truly wanted to keep that firewall in place.  You, or someone,
should have complained two years ago when the CentOS infrastructure team
formally joined the RHEL team as "CPE".  There were no objections to that
and it was largely seen as a positive move by everyone I've talked to.  If
that was something so important to you, I think it's on you to pay
attention and raise those concerns when they were happening.  Significant
portions of the CentOS team are now under my org which is called the "Linux
Engineering" team.  We're responsible for RHEL, CentOS, Fedora, CoreOS,
UBI, and several other Linux related activities at Red Hat.  They're
excellent engineers and I'm lucky to have them and hope they can find a
fruitful career in the engineering org.

I agree you have several justifiable concerns, for example, transparency.
Though even that has recently changed as the board has been posting meeting
minutes.  It could be better but a step in the right direction. The closer
joining of the Fedora and CentOS teams (under Linux Engineering) was not in
any way hidden or kept secret and there were multiple announcements about
it.  Your concerns are the first negative feedback I've received on that
team merger.  It would be helpful to take your concerns looking forward to
what you want to see as opposed to looking back at a period in time in
CentOS where you clearly weren't aware of what was actually going on.


> _______________________________________________
> CentOS-devel mailing list
> CentOS-devel at centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20201225/1b8d493c/attachment-0005.html>