On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 at 19:26, Phil Perry <pperry at elrepo.org> wrote: > > On 04/12/2021 23:30, Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 4, 2021 at 3:50 PM Neal Gompa <ngompa13 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Sat, Dec 4, 2021 at 3:21 PM Phil Perry <pperry at elrepo.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> On 04/12/2021 17:16, Neal Gompa wrote: > >>>> On Sat, Dec 4, 2021 at 11:58 AM Phil Perry <pperry at elrepo.org> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> On 23/11/2021 12:24, Alex Iribarren wrote: > > It is accurate. Can you help me understand what is confusing? It > > shows CentOS Stream 9 being a continuously delivered OS, with RHEL > > releases being derived from it. In this case, work went into CentOS 9 > > Stream and a while later it showed up in 9 Beta. > > > > The pictorial representation shows RHEL 9 Beta (or any RHEL release for > that matter) being forks off the continuously delivered CentOS Stream. > There is no feedback loop shown whereby once forked, anything that > happens in RHEL 9 Beta can end up back in Stream, as Stream has moved on > since then. The part that is missing on the pictorial graph are all the feedback loops which go on. There need to be lines going back from RHEL into Fedora, CentOS Stream, and RHEL itself.. and also vice versa as an engineer looks for a 'fix' and finds it elsewhere or needs to feed back a fix to something 'later'. I pointed this out but had to agree with Carl and Aleksandra that my attempts to cover all the cases to make it more accurate made the chart unreadable. The real flowchart would be a mass of different coloured lines, different directions and a lot of tools which while for someone who loves intricate design flows would love.. just looks like a mass of spaghetti with blueberry and tomato sauce mixed together (and about as appetizing). -- Stephen J Smoogen. Let us be kind to one another, for most of us are fighting a hard battle. -- Ian MacClaren