CentOS - Dec 2015 - 7.2 kernel panic on boot

On 12/07/2015 06:31 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> On 07/12/15 04:11, Greg Lindahl wrote:
>> Oh, wait: CentOS, love it or leave it.
> I hope its not that drastic!
As a member of the user community, it's hard to see it any other way.

I want to be fair to everyone, so I'll acknowledge that Greg was making 
an ass of himself.  He said so, himself.  I also think that the question 
of what release the problem occurred on is irrelevant. The relevant 
question is the version of the kernel package, not the centos-release 
package.

But that aside, I think that Greg was right in that the version notation 
used in the wiki (https://wiki.centos.org/Download) is unnecessarily 
inconsistent with older releases.  The rpm version for centos-release is 
7-1.1503.  The version reflected in /etc/centos-release is 7.1.1503.  
But text on the wiki omits a portion of that version number.  Greg was 
consistent and (in my opinion) clear that he was suggesting that the 
wiki be consistent with the numbering used elsewhere.

Johnny's response ignored that suggestion completely, and defended the 
version numbering scheme, which was not in question.  And in his very 
first response, he said, "CentOS-7 Base OS is still there, it is free 
for anyone to use ... If you don't want to use it.. That is your
choice."

Can you see why that would be interpreted as "love it or leave it?"

It has been my impression for a long time that the CentOS developers are 
reluctant to engage the community in contributing to the project, and 
this is a fairly good example of why that impression endures.
> There are multiple issues and fallouts etc here, start from the fact
> that the point number isnt really much other than a datestamp
Arguably, that's all any version number is.  Isn't it?

But your response, like Johnny's ignores what Greg actually suggested: 
that the wiki use a version number consistent with the rpm version 
number and the content of /etc/centos-release.
> Greg's pointed out the website version reporting, and its a great point
> - however, note that we are already working on fixing that side of
> things by bringing all Download specific info into 1 place, and doing
> this on the wiki ( wiki.centos.org/Download )
Yes, the wiki is where the problem is.  That's the same URL that Greg 
mentioned originally.
> This is also primarily driven by the fact that we've
> struggled to keep the site updated and relevant, whereas the wiki with
> its much larger user base and contributor base has far better churn.
I would interpret that as an invitation to participate in the project, 
but I created an account on the wiki and don't seem to be able to edit 
anything.

On Dec 7, 2015, at 12:54 PM, Gordon Messmer <gordon.messmer at gmail.com>
wrote:
> 
> It has been my impression for a long time that the CentOS developers are
reluctant to engage the community in contributing to the project
Who is ?contributing? here?  Where?s the patch?  All I see is a bunch of
bikeshedding.

The new version numbering scheme was created to solve a real problem, which
CentOS has been fighting for years.[*]

If you change anything about the version numbering scheme within the 7 line, you
break automated workflows that were debugged and deployed a year ago.  The time
to make such a change is 8 at earliest, and I?d argue that switching *again*
after the 7 effort would cause more problems than it solves.

Remember, this distro is about stability.  Changing naming/numbering schemes in
a way that breaks scripts is about as far from stability as you can get.


[*] With every release from CentOS 3.1 through 6.7, there was always a series of
mailing list questions of the same basic form: ?FooApp is only certified for
CentOS 6.4, but CentOS 6.7 is out, and the vendor won?t update the
certification, so how do I keep my servers on CentOS 6.4??   Just as there is no
CentOS 7.2, only 7, there was no CentOS 6.4, only 6.  The new scheme tries to
make that clear.

It would actually *be* clear if the tail (CentOS) could wag the dog (Red Hat)
here and get them to adopt the YYMM respin scheme.

On 12/07/2015 02:35 PM, Warren Young wrote:
> The new version numbering scheme was created to solve a real problem, which
CentOS has been fighting for years.
I don't know how to be any more clear than I was.  Neither Greg nor I 
(as far as I can tell) were suggesting that the version numbering be 
changed, only that it be consistent with the rpm and centos-release 
files where it is used on the wiki.