[CentOS] Upstream and downstream (was Re: What are the differences between systemd and non-systemd Linux distros?)

[Japheth Cleaver]

On 10/19/2018 9:10 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> On Fri Oct 19 00:52:12 UTC 2018 Japheth Cleaver wrote:
> > This brings to mind a video I was pointed to not long ago of Brendan
> > Conoboy's talk at a Dojo recently:
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQsUdLPJW20
>
> Hey, that's me!  Hi.  By the way, Jim Perrin did an updated version of 
> this talk *today* at CERN in my absence (thanks Jim!). Hopefully the 
> video will be posted soon.  I expect we'll be doing updated versions 
> of these at Devconf, future Dojos, etc- as things progress.

Thanks for responding!


> > Conoboy, on the other hand, takes great pains during the speech to
> > describe a much more fluid and complex interaction between CentOS
> > and its upstream, and puts forth CentOS as a mechanism (perhaps
> > the best mechanism) for the winder EL community to contribute
> > (something?) back into RHEL's future. He also gives clear signals
> > that various Fedora steps have been in directions that Red Hat did
> > not want EL necessarily going, and that the simplistic assumptions
> > we've commonly been making aren't really correct.
>
> You might be reading into this more than is there.  It's not so much 
> that things are fluid as it is that they are undefined. There is no 
> clear, consistent way for a member of the Fedora or CentOS 
> communities, who create something great, to have that thing make its 
> way into an update of an existing RHEL major release. Defining that 
> path, making it possible, would be win for all.

*snip*

> > Red Hat (and Red-Hat-as-a-sponsor-of-CentOS) might
> > do well to clarify just what type of back-and-forth it wants out of
> > the wider EL-using community. Does it want direct feedback in the
> > form of tickets? Should people form SIGs? Obviously RHEL7 is not
> > changing init systems, but where should one talk about the future?
>
> Man, it breaks my heart when I read things like this.  There might be 
> some historic truth to the above, but it doesn't have to be the 
> future.  The objective I mentioned near the end of the talk has been 
> posted, but not yet voted on:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pfrields/Lifecycle_Objective
>
> The beauty of community is that it can grow and shift according to the 
> needs of its members.  To me it looks like the lifecycle objective may 
> be a partial answer to how Fedora, RHEL, and CentOS communities can 
> reach a state of fluidity, a virtuous cycle.  The thing that makes it 
> the most likely to succeed is if members of the Fedora, RHEL, and 
> CentOS communities work on it together.  I hope those reading this who 
> are interested in that join in.
>
While I do believe that's important -- especially in helping to 
prioritize re-basing decisions, if not architectural ones, for updates 
--  I feel like things are still more open to interpretation for the 
lead-up *to* a major release. Modularity, software collections, and the 
like can be used alongside native EL point updates or a more flexible 
EPEL policy to incorporate new tech, but the impression is that by the 
time a RHEL beta makes it out, it's already a bit late for a 
community-suggested major changes. Bug reports? Yes. Design changes? Not 
as much. Having a stable platform OS design is a key principle for EL 
users, and Beta->0 seems late in the game.

(Nevertheless, the lifecycle stream discussion is absolutely one that 
does need to be had, and I'm glad that there's that out there!)

-jc