<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>Morning all,</div><div> I have to concur with Trevor and Kay on a lot of points...</div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
The more CentOS feels exactly like "RHEL - but without<br>
support", the more people understand it and take stock.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>There's an inevitable amount of trepidation around any change in direction from a Community Project and the current changes for CentOS are pretty significant, it seems wise to keep a clear and distinct link between CentOS and RHEL to allay any such concerns.</div>
<div><br></div><div>In any "What does this mean to us?" conversation it would be very soothing to be able to say something like "Well, we'll move from CentOS 6.$x to 7.$y and that will continue to maintain compatibility just as before but the community will also be doing $z as well etc...".</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
Seems better to work around issues with the RHEL versioning scheme than to</blockquote><div>&</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<span style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">If the SIGs need a </span><span style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">versioning scheme for the layers on top of the base o/s then the new </span><span style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">naming scheme sounds good for those but the core o/s, I believe, should </span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">stick with mirroring upstream release numbers.</span> </blockquote>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">At $work we do actually use a %YYYY%MM postfix in our Spacewalk set-up to keep monthly snapshots and I think the idea in the abstract is a good one (although YYYYMM is specifically excluded from ISO8601 for clarity reasons). However we add the date ourselves "independently", is there any reason the SIGs couldn't use the -$TAG in the same way? Allowing the core to remain unambiguously equivalent.</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">It might even allow different SIGs to try different formats/options, find the best and then transfer control of the -$TAG format back up-stream to the CentOS Project centrally if there's agreement and then around(?)-stream to RedHat themselves? It could save their support guys any confusion of the future RHEL9 with the truly legacy "Red Hat Linux 9", a point I vaguely remember someone mooting about 7. :^)</div>
<div><br></div>-- <br>Regards,<br> Phil
</div></div>