<div dir="ltr"><div class="markdown-here-wrapper" style><p style="margin:1.2em 0px!important">Personally I like Jake Shipton’s suggestion. I have been a CentOS user for many years, from 4.x onwards, for both business use and personal projects.</p>
<p style="margin:1.2em 0px!important">I prefer matching RHEL versioning - if RHEL is using 7.1, 7.2, etc. we should use that. There’s two systems of sub-versioning I like:</p>
<p style="margin:1.2em 0px!important">7.1-1.15, 7.2-1.24, etc. (SIG version)<br>7.3_1139, etc. (SIG revision)</p>
<p style="margin:1.2em 0px!important">If CentOS aims for full binary compatibility, any tool that checks for RedHat version should relay the red hat version string (such as <code style="font-size:0.85em;font-family:Consolas,Inconsolata,Courier,monospace;margin:0px 0.15em;padding:0px 0.3em;white-space:pre-wrap;border:1px solid rgb(234,234,234);border-top-left-radius:3px;border-top-right-radius:3px;border-bottom-right-radius:3px;border-bottom-left-radius:3px;display:inline;background-color:rgb(248,248,248)">etc/redhat-version</code>). I think that <code style="font-size:0.85em;font-family:Consolas,Inconsolata,Courier,monospace;margin:0px 0.15em;padding:0px 0.3em;white-space:pre-wrap;border:1px solid rgb(234,234,234);border-top-left-radius:3px;border-top-right-radius:3px;border-bottom-right-radius:3px;border-bottom-left-radius:3px;display:inline;background-color:rgb(248,248,248)">/etc/centos-version</code>) should show the SIG version as well.</p>
<p style="margin:1.2em 0px!important">If anything, I dislike the YYMM format suggested above, for two reasons. a) Date format could be confused (like Jake said) and b) this limits us to one patch release a month. Although an uncommon occurrence, I’d prefer to use a format that doesn't have this limitation.</p>
<p style="margin:1.2em 0px!important">My two cents.</p>
<p style="margin:1.2em 0px!important">Dan</p>
<div title="MDH:UGVyc29uYWxseSBJIGxpa2UgSmFrZSBTaGlwdG9uJ3Mgc3VnZ2VzdGlvbi4gSSBoYXZlIGJlZW4g
YSBDZW50T1MgdXNlciBmb3IgbWFueSB5ZWFycywgZnJvbSA0Lnggb253YXJkcywgZm9yIGJvdGgg
YnVzaW5lc3MgdXNlIGFuZCBwZXJzb25hbCBwcm9qZWN0cy48ZGl2Pjxicj48L2Rpdj48ZGl2Pkkg
cHJlZmVyIG1hdGNoaW5nIFJIRUwgdmVyc2lvbmluZyAtIGlmIFJIRUwgaXMgdXNpbmcgNy4xLCA3
LjIsIGV0Yy4gd2Ugc2hvdWxkIHVzZSB0aGF0LiBUaGVyZSdzIHR3byBzeXN0ZW1zIG9mIHN1Yi12
ZXJzaW9uaW5nIEkgbGlrZTo8L2Rpdj48ZGl2Pjxicj48L2Rpdj48ZGl2PjcuMS0xLjE1LCA3LjIt
MS4yNCwgZXRjLiAoU0lHIHZlcnNpb24pPC9kaXY+PGRpdj43LjNfMTEzOSwgZXRjLiAoU0lHIHJl
dmlzaW9uKTwvZGl2PjxkaXY+PGJyPjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+SWYgQ2VudE9TIGFpbXMgZm9yIGZ1bGwg
YmluYXJ5IGNvbXBhdGliaWxpdHksIGFueSB0b29sIHRoYXQgY2hlY2tzIGZvciBSZWRIYXQgdmVy
c2lvbiBzaG91bGQgcmVsYXkgdGhlIHJlZCBoYXQgdmVyc2lvbiBzdHJpbmcgKHN1Y2ggYXMgYGV0
Yy9yZWRoYXQtdmVyc2lvbmApLiBJIHRoaW5rIHRoYXQgYC9ldGMvY2VudG9zLXZlcnNpb25gKSBz
aG91bGQgc2hvdyB0aGUgU0lHIHZlcnNpb24gYXMgd2VsbC48L2Rpdj48ZGl2Pjxicj48L2Rpdj48
ZGl2PklmIGFueXRoaW5nLCBJIGRpc2xpa2UgdGhlIFlZTU0gZm9ybWF0IHN1Z2dlc3RlZCBhYm92
ZSwgZm9yIHR3byByZWFzb25zLiBhKSBEYXRlIGZvcm1hdCBjb3VsZCBiZSBjb25mdXNlZCAobGlr
ZSBKYWtlIHNhaWQpIGFuZCBiKSB0aGlzIGxpbWl0cyB1cyB0byBvbmUgcGF0Y2ggcmVsZWFzZSBh
IG1vbnRoLiBBbHRob3VnaCBhbiB1bmNvbW1vbiBvY2N1cnJlbmNlLCBJJ2QgcHJlZmVyIHRvIHVz
ZSBhIGZvcm1hdCB0aGF0IGRvZXNuJ3QgaGF2ZSB0aGlzIGxpbWl0YXRpb24uPC9kaXY+PGRpdj48
YnI+PC9kaXY+PGRpdj5NeSB0d28gY2VudHMuPC9kaXY+PGRpdj48YnI+PC9kaXY+PGRpdj5EYW48
L2Rpdj4=" style="height:0;font-size:0em;padding:0;margin:0"></div></div><div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 9 June 2014 09:12, Ljubomir Ljubojevic <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:centos@plnet.rs" target="_blank">centos@plnet.rs</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="">On 06/09/2014 02:55 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On 8 June 2014 17:01, John R. Dennison <<a href="mailto:jrd@gerdesas.com">jrd@gerdesas.com</a><br>
</div><div><div class="h5">> <mailto:<a href="mailto:jrd@gerdesas.com">jrd@gerdesas.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> On Sun, Jun 08, 2014 at 05:20:47PM -0400, Carl Trieloff wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > I've read through the the responses so for and the main concern<br>
> seems to<br>
> > be understanding the linkage between upstream and CentOS. Am I<br>
> correct<br>
> > in that?<br>
><br>
> That and the fact that it has been stated repeatedly that the CentOS<br>
> core product will _not_ change and what is being discussed here is a<br>
> change to that same core product.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Well I think this is more about defining what people think of as change<br>
> and no change. Being the internet I am sure there are some set of people<br>
> who will define any new release as being a change in the core product<br>
> and thus a breakage. And there will be people who are at the other end<br>
> of the spectrum and ok with all the change in the world as long as the<br>
> name is CentOS and the first number is similar to the RHEL name. And<br>
> then there are a ton of definitions of what is change and what isn't in<br>
> between.<br>
><br>
> So a better discussion is I think people defining what they would accept<br>
> as being 'change' and what is not change. The board has stated their<br>
> view of change and various users are defining in a piecemeal way what is<br>
> their definition of change. I think that it might be better if the users<br>
> state a bit clearer so that the board has a definite idea of where the<br>
> lines are.<br>
> --<br>
> Stephen J Smoogen.<br>
><br>
<br>
</div></div>I am main admin of the CentOS Facebook group. In about two weeks we will<br>
have 10.000 members. There are only 3 of us to properly respond, and we<br>
are on the frontline of newbie wave, those that never ever used IRC,<br>
forums or mailing lists. We have trouble just to explain that they need<br>
to upgrade to latest. Imagine the chaos that would come from date<br>
versioning. I think my ultimate response would be to just stop<br>
administering that group, period. Even now every 5-10 days I have to<br>
reiterate all basic steps even thou it is pinned in first post. People<br>
just do not read or learn anything they can get away with. They are<br>
lazy, and as it was previously said, every even small complication will<br>
repulse them away from CentOS.<br>
<br>
AS for the "definition" of change, It was made simple by devel guys.<br>
There can not be no changes, beside most necessary, that distance CentOS<br>
from RHEL. What RHEL publishes CentOS must also publish, with only as<br>
minimal as possible changes. CentOS distro is not allowed to carry any<br>
3rd party repo files because RHEL does not have them, and CentOS project<br>
strives to be binary compatible with RHEL.<br>
<br>
And then suddenly, after CentOS Project members get payed by Red Hat<br>
CentOS project starts looking like Fedora respins, braking with RHEL<br>
numeration, CentOS distro becomes experimental platform for software Red<br>
Hat wants to push for better market share via respins, and we are left<br>
explaining to every single newbie why that had to be done.<br>
<br>
If SiG's are going to be so problematic, then they can devise their own<br>
versioning scheme, because if they are going to create such difference<br>
from core CentOS distro then just call them CentOS-like distro's and be<br>
done with it. They are either CentOS with 3rd party repositories or will<br>
be just using SOME CentOS-produced packages for better use of available<br>
resources. Period.<br>
<div class="im HOEnZb"><br>
<br>
--<br>
Ljubomir Ljubojevic<br>
(Love is in the Air)<br>
PL Computers<br>
Serbia, Europe<br>
<br>
StarOS, Mikrotik and CentOS/RHEL/Linux consultant<br>
</div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">_______________________________________________<br>
CentOS-devel mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CentOS-devel@centos.org">CentOS-devel@centos.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel" target="_blank">http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>