[CentOS-docs] Update for FAQ - q.15 & q.31 update & merge

Mon Jun 8 22:27:24 UTC 2015
Karsten Wade <kwade at redhat.com>

Hash: SHA1

On 06/05/2015 01:52 PM, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
> On 06/05/2015 08:30 PM, Karsten Wade wrote:
>> Folks:
>> A few of us (KB, Johnny, myself) have begun work on updating the
>> main FAQs on the CentOS wiki. Mainly that means looking over and
>> updating for any changes that have been going on in the last 18
>> months as the project has expanded to include SIG releases,
>> monthly updates of many new types, new hardware architectures,
>> and so forth.
>> For this first update we've got this from the FAQ:
>> q.15: 
>> http://wiki.centos.org/FAQ/General#head-6e2c3746ec45ac314291746676032
>> q.31 
>> http://wiki.centos.org/FAQ/General#head-dcca41e9a3d5ac4c6d900a991990f
>> The first item is that these questions are repetitive, so I'd
>> like to combine them in to a single answer. Second is that
>> version numbering has expanded, so we need to cover monthly
>> updates and so forth.
>> Circling around on this, we ended up with the following complete 
>> rewrite that would replace q.31 and retire q.15 (thereby making
>> q.31 in to q.30.) How does this update sound?
>> If we're close enough, I'll push it to live at the start of next
>> week, and we can always continue iterating on it.
>> The text below is in Moin Moin format; I was going to do a diff 
>> between the versions but then we differed so wildly in combining
>> and rewriting that I think a mental diff will work better. A
>> formatted draft is here:
>> http://wiki.centos.org/KarstenWade/GeneralFAQUpdateq31q15
>> Thanks - Karsten
> I'd say that at least the following paragraphs from q15 are worth 
> preserving: - Any point release is just a "snapshot" with previous
> updates, plus the latest batch of new upstream updates, rolled into
> a new [base] repo with an initially empty [updates] repo. - There
> is a CentOS Vault containing older CentOS trees. This vault is a 
> picture of the older tree when it was removed from the main tree,
> and does not receive updates. It should only be used for
> reference.
> After " If you are using an older minor version than the latest in
> a given branch, then you are missing security and bugfix updates."
> I'd also emphasize that we offer no support for these
> configurations, something along: For this reason old minor releases
> are never supported. If you want/need to "freeze" at an old point
> release you are entirely on your own.
> wolfy, tired of people who fail to understand what minor releases
> are and keep pushing in IRC for support of old[er] stuff

I think those look pretty good especially if you think they can answer
confusion about community support for older minor versions. Included
here with some highlighting:

The size of this answer article is just a bit larger (looking) than
each of the previous two answers, which is good -- too many words
won't help. :)

I trimmed a bit more stuff -- repetitive phrasing and unrelated terms
- -- I think it's ready publish to the FAQ.

- - Karsten
- -- 
Karsten 'quaid' Wade        .^\          CentOS Doer of Stuff
http://TheOpenSourceWay.org    \  http://community.redhat.com
@quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC)  \v'             gpg: AD0E0C41
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)