On Fri, November 4, 2016 9:29 am, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 11/04/2016 09:15 AM, Mark Haney wrote:
That's all well and good, but how about you actually include the minor number AND the release date? I.e. 7.3-1104 for CentOS 7.3 released today, for example. I'm all for the SIGs to keep track of their own upstreams, but surely there's a better way to do this that doesn't annoy the heck out of us Joe-Blows out here. A lot of us don't have the time (or inclination) to deal with oddball version discrepancies when there really doesn't need to be.
I mean, there are dozens of Ubuntu distros and they all use the same basic versioning schemes. (Maybe not a completely fair example, but still.) Isn't the idea with CentOS to be a method of generating a larger testing base and interest in RHEL and it's products? If not, that's how I've always seen it, incorrect or not.
I said on the tree it will be 7.3.1611 .. and I don't get to make the call on this.
This was battle was fought two years ago.
We don't have to like it.
We also don't need to fight it again.
I do what I am told, and I have been told what to do ...
I for one am perfectly happy with whatever scheme you guys follow. And I am really grateful to you for the great job you are doing! As IMHO all of us should who enjoy using results of your work (and RedHat, and all open source projects - if I go deeper) without helping much ourselves (I don't count mirrors some of us maintain as a big effort).
Valeri
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++