• yarn@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I haven’t been really keeping up with this RHEL drama, so I’m probably going to regret making this comment. But about this bug merge request in particular, you have to remember that RHEL’s main target audience is paying enterprise customers. It’s the “E” right there in RHEL. So stability is a high priority for their developers, since if they accidentally introduce a bug to their code, then they’ll have a lot of unhappy paying customers.

    The next comment that was cropped out of that screenshot basically explains exactly that. While the Red Hat developers probably appreciate the bug fix, the reality is that the bug was listed as non-critical, and the Red Hat teams didn’t have the capacity to adequately regression test and QA the merge request. But the patch was successfully merged into Fedora, so it will eventually end up in RHEL through that path, which is exactly what the Fedora path is for.

    The blowup about this particulat bug doesn’t seem justified to me. Red Hat obviously can’t fix and regression test every single bug that’s listed in their bug tracker. So why arbitrarily focus on this one medium priority bug? if it were listed as a critical bug, then yes, the blowup would be justified.

    • exu@feditown.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      In its blog post Red Hat specifically called out downstream distributions for not contributing anything to the development of RHEL and that they should be making fixes to CentOS Stream. Well, this is a fix for CentOS Stream and Red Hat still doesn’t care. They just don’t want community contributions.

      • jerry@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not having resources to test it right this second isn’t “doesn’t care” it’s just a lower priority.

    • digdilem@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Agree on point of detail, but the “drama” is the reason for the fuss. Redhat’s communication, especially to the community that helped build and support it, has always been patchy, but over the past few years it’s been apalling. As others have pointed out, they’ve insulted a lot of us, specifically for not contributing upstream - so it’s not unexpected for them to be called on it when someone does.

      I think the EL sphere as a whole (including RHEL and all up and downstreams) is getting drastically weakened directly because of Redhat’s poor decision making, and that’s a shame for all of us.

    • angrymouse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      But it is also another stab in the community, they took centos that was a community project for them, then transformed this project that was downstream to upstream, then called all other downstream distros a negative net worth cause they don’t engage in the process of RHEL, then blocked the acess to this distros to the downstream, then reject the work of this ppl they called net negative without a decent process.

      What actually red hat wants?

      Centos now is only a beta branch? Ppl who wants derive from centos should be fixing everything downstream and duplicate work cause centos now is just an internal beta from red hat? If yes, why they took the project from the community? I’m not a rpm based distros user but I totally understand why ppl are pissed.

      • digdilem@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        What actually red hat wants?

        All the control and all of the money.

        Besides that, I suspect they have no clear vision. And if they do, they are absolutely terrible at communicating that.

  • PhysicsDad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wasn’t Red Hat just complaining that Alma and Rocky didn’t add value because they weren’t submitting fixes upstream?

  • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    As someone interviewing for Canonical’s Security team (they make you do like 10 interviews, I’m like 5 deep over 3 weeks), I cannot imagine anyone security-minded writing that comment. It either:

    • Comes from higher up
    • Michal doesn’t think security is important
    • MrOzwaldMan@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Can you prove that your joining Canonical (picture proof), as you know, people can be anything in the internet while they’re in their parent’s basement.

      If you are, what type of interview questions do they ask?

  • cognitive@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Alma should use this as advantage for them. Now market it as “Alma Linux is more secure than RHEL”.