<div dir="ltr">On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 7:06 AM, Tim Bell <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Tim.Bell@cern.ch" target="_blank">Tim.Bell@cern.ch</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="">I share Greg's perspective. I see the technical arguments but have not seen the benefits that justify the significant confusion.<br></div>
<br>
The communication problems you raise are exactly the ones that we will have with our user community. Given the difficulties you have explaining it to those on centos-devel, imagine how we'll be explaining it to our thousands of users, external support lines and management chains.<br>
<br>
I could explain a 7.0 or even 7.0.1406 but a 7.1406 with an associated wiki page would cause us real problems in the field.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"></span><br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>This. So much this.<br><br></div><div>We have a mixed RHEL/CentOS environment, and having the CentOS systems at the same rev as the RHEL ones (which are locked due to ignorant vendors) is essential. While techies may not have much issue with 7.YYMM, it's going to be a pain to explain to management. Having the minor rev in there would pretty much fix this.<br>
<br></div><div>It seems like a good middle ground.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Tom <br></div></div></div></div>