On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Peter peter@pajamian.dhs.org wrote:
My point is that there was a claim by the board that this particular change was discussed extensively on the -devel list. If it was then it should be quite easy to point out the post(s) in the archives where this particular discussion tool place.
The addition of a date reference makes sense to allow and identify respins within the life of a minor rev, but...
There were alternatives proposed, like: http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2014-June/010940.html but I can't see any 'discussion' about why the weird concept of using the minor .0 in the initial iso name but dropping it out of subsequent versions was better or chosen.
I see the directory created on vault.centos.org is surprisingly sane, though, retaining the useful minor rev number.