Yeah, I learned more about their lifecycles due to this thread.

I think you’re correct as far as usability is concerned, but they’ve got a lot of similarities:

• both are released as daily snapshots, that were only auto tested
• those snapshots are frozen before an update and tested further
• then they’re released as a new minor/major version

The comparison really breaks with leap and sel. While fedora is directly upstream of rhel, both sel and leap are downstream from TW, and leap also has sel packages and so it’s also downstream from it. But I think my point still sort of stands because it seems like they mainly implemented that to get additional testing for sel packages.

Usability and stability wise, a better comparison would be: fedora:tw -> centos:leap -> rhel:sel