There's something that was brought up once regarding those people saying RH is in violation of the GPL due to them not providing a public git tree, but it's buried pretty deep, and not fully explained in a historical context:
Nothing RH is doing here is violating either the spirit or the actual terms of the GPL.
RH provides the source tarball including required makefiles and configuration files for the source to build the binary as shipped. That's all that's required by the GPL.
The language in the license was added to prevent someone from shipping a printed version of the source or other forms of distributing the source that amount to useless for an end user. Sure it's the source all right, but not machine readable nor editable or usable to make a modified distribution from. The language of the license protects us, the end users, from these kinds of actions by distributors of GPL applications.
Remember that GPL (v2 and earlier) was crafted long before wide spread network access. If a user needs source, it has to be supplied in a form the user can access so they can make changes, recompile, etc. So a tape, or other machine-readable media would need to be supplied by the vendor, and it needs to be in a reasonable format. Wide spread network access makes this easy, as a vendor can put the source of the binary available for download as RH has done. The GPL is about protecting the four freedoms outlined by RMS / the FSF, nothing more, nothing less.
The lack of a public git tree or multiple patch sets may make some workflows difficult for people outside of RedHat's immediate area of concern, but it isn't a GPL violation. It may make some people in the community irked, but that's a completely different matter than anything the GPL addresses.