On 06/22/2014 03:40 AM, Mustafa Muhammad wrote:
On Jun 21, 2014 1:42 PM, "Johnny Hughes" <johnny@centos.org mailto:johnny@centos.org> wrote:
On 06/21/2014 05:00 AM, Ron Yorston wrote:
Johnny Hughes wrote:
What better way to communicate that they are not standalone but
are all
only part of the MAJOR release and a POINT IN TIME part of that major release than to name them "<MAJOR RELEASE>.<POINT IN TIME>" ?
The current scheme represents <POINT IN TIME> as an integer that
starts
from zero and increments with each minor release.
I remain unconvinced that a YYMM representation of <POINT IN TIME> is any better.
It is not really better at conveying time, no. It is the same at conveying the time.
Where it is better is in denoting that Red Hat is doing things inside the 6.4 tree (again, just following the above example) while CentOS does not do those things inside our 6.4 tree after we release 6.5. We can't do them, even if we want to as we don't have the sources.
Why we don't have the sources? Isn't Red Hat obliged to give the sources with the binary packages?
The Sources are available on git.centos.org.