On 07/02/2014 10:31 AM, Ned Slider wrote:
> On 02/07/14 09:23, Karanbir Singh wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 06/25/2014 04:50 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
>>> Note: this tree now has a centos-release that implements the scope of
>>> change we were talking about in the numbering thread. I went through
>>> quite a few permutations and what we have here seems like the best
>>> middle ground to be on. I am also going to try and circle back to some
>>> of the RH folks to make sure they are ok with how we message around
>>> where the CentOS Linux release is built from.
>>
>> Still looking for feedback here - were pretty much at release grade at
>> this point and the number conversation needs to close off before we can
>> push to prod.
>>
>> The tree's from the last few days have still implemented the 7.1406
>> scheme with almost no feedback, but for us to move forward we need a +1
>> vote from people here.
>>
>
> -1
>
>> the other scheme that is also on the options is the 7-0-1406 and
>> 7-0-core-1406
>>
>
> I assume you mean 7.0-1406 and 7.0-core-1406 here?

no, we've never actually done a .anything relese, refer back to the
centos-release rpms from the last 10 odd years :)

eg: centos-6 is at the moment : 6-5.11.2