Read on Twitter
#CentOS stream can be good. We don't know since it is not yet used by RHEL engineers. We won't have the RHEL release notes anymore. It is unclear how users will know about breaking changes, like CentOS 6.4 crmsh removal. It is unclear which voice community will have in stream.
And that is the issue here. Instead of first putting stream as a RHEL upstream and then announcing the end of CentOS, it was announced the other way around. As community, we do have concerns. Moving from 10 to 5 years is also a big cut.
Reading on the mailing list that the CentOS board was forced to do this is a concern. Reading that they don't want to discuss that decision is a concern. It might all be fine at the end. But we don't know.
I'd like stream to be an opportunity to reduce the number of RPM's I have to build. Will it work? Which investment will it take? Red Hat should provide us more time to get confidence and then decommission CentOS, when the CentOS stream works.
We are Happy users of Foreman. I did contribute for a year. Upstream of Satellite. But there are release notes, there are release processes, release candidates. How will stream release management work?
Red Hat has all the rights to do what they do. I don't believe that another rebuild will get the same popularity. I don't believe another rebuild is what we need.
What we need is to think twice about what happens after 5 years. How this works. How we collaborate on stream.
What we need is to think twice about what happens after 5 years. How this works. How we collaborate on stream.
At the end this is a communication mistake. One year too early. Give us time. Let's build trust again. Let's clarify those important questions. Then, let's CentOS linux go away.
