• exu@feditown.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    136
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    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.

    • yarn@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      50
      arrow-down
      22
      ·
      1 year ago

      CentOS Stream is the staging ground for RHEL. It isn’t a bleeding edge distro that can accept any merge request willy-nilly. For the reason why, reread my original comment about the nature of enterprise support.

      Fedora is the distro that is more bleeding edge in the RHEL realm. This merge request was more suited for Fedora, and the fix was successfully applied to Fedora. So, I fail to see any irrational actions from Red Hat here.

      • Flaky@iusearchlinux.fyi
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sounds to me like they messed up the communication between them and the devs. If they directed the PR submitter to Fedora, I think there wouldn’t be as much fuel to the fire.

        Granted, all the chaos surrounding RHEL does make me a little worried for Fedora. Fedora is not a bad distro by any means, and I don’t want to have to not recommend it because of the drama.

        • Qvest@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          The only thing Red Hat has power over Fedora is its name and infrastructure. Red Hat can’t decide for Fedora. Do they have Red Hat employees working for Fedora? Yes, they do, but the employees decide for Fedora, not for Red Hat. Besides, all the telemetry drama is being sorted out in the most open way possible over on Discourse (Fedora Discussion). It is still a 100% community distribution despite a lot of people saying “it is already decided” “Fedora is doomed” etc.

      • Zeth0s@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why would they accept PR at all if they don’t have a robust testing process and approvals are dictated by customers needs?

        The message as it is now to potential contributors is that their contribution in not welcome.

        Which is fair, but the message itself is a new PR issue for red hat

        • yarn@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          They do have a robust testing process, but their main focus at the CentOS Stream stage is more about preparing for the stable RHEL build than it is about adding a ton of new features and bug fixes. Testing takes time so it would be physically impossible for them to test everything if they didn’t have a limit on the type of contributions they accept. For bug fixes, their limit is that the bug has to be critical. For bugs lesser than that, the correct place to contribute those fixes is in Fedora.

          That has been adequately explained in the merge request at this point, if you click in that link at the top of this thread amd read through it to get the latest info. The Red Hat devs have also made no indication that they’re not welcome to contributors. Anyone who’s saying that is blowing this merge request issue out of proportion.

          • Zeth0s@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I read it, and I read the messages from the devs. The communication issue I am trying to point is also highlighted in the comments: if the decision on merging a PR is uniquely dictated by financial benefits of IBM, ignoring the broader benefits of the community, the message is that red hat is looking for free labor and it is not really interested in anything else. Which is absolutely the case, as we all know, but writing it down after the recent events is another PR issue, as red hat justified controversial decisions on the lack of contributions from downstream.

            The Italian dev tried to put it down as “we have to follow our service management processes that are messy, tedious and expensive” but he didn’t address the problems in the original message. The contributor himself felt like they asked his contribution just to reject it because of purely financial reasons without any additional details. It is a new PR incident

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

              I don’t know what to tell you. This change was more appropriate for Fedora and developers are bad at PR is basically the simplest way to put it.

    • jerry@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

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