On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 11:17 PM, David Sommerseth
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On 17/03/16 13:23, Tom H wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:53 PM, David Sommerseth
>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Not going to argue that this could have been done better, I agree with you
>>> here. On the other hand, maybe *that* is one reason it takes time to get this
>>> issue resolved too? That Red Hat QE is working on improving the situation,
>>> adding needed regression tests and so on for this use case. I know I'm
>>> speculating now, but I also know that these guys really do their best to avoid
>>> painful experiences for users and customers. Unfortunately, they do mistakes
>>> - as we all do from time to time.
>>
>> Given the
>> https://git.centos.org/blobdiff/rpms!bind.git/d56ed2d3a2736a07a09c268f3b2607cca8f1b6ca/SOURCES!named-chroot.service
>> commit, there's probably a lot of hype in RH's QA marketing claims.
>> I'm not implying that there's no QA at all but, in this case, if there
>> was any, it sucked.
>
> The people working on CentOS are not the same people working on RHEL,
> even if they're working in the same company.  And RHEL is still the
> upstream source of CentOS.
>
> So if CentOS decides to fix this on their own, they need to keep track
> of this until it's fixed in RHEL and then remove their own fix.  Of
> course SL could do that as well, but that can be a maintenance burden.
>
> That's the downside of being a downstream distro.

Just because it's on git.centos.org doesn't mean that this is a CentOS
change. It's an import from RH. CentOS doesn't diverge from RHEL with
downstream patches. And, AFAIK, SL uses pristine RH sources and not
those modified by CentOS.

This change comes from RH. It's too bad that it chose to bless CentOS
as its downstream and push its sources to git.centos.org rather than
set up a git redhat.com for all to pull from.