On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
On 04/02/2015 12:14 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 11:57:23AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
How, without a cross reference of some sort, do you know if a given CentOS iso will install on hardware where you know that the needed driver was added in an RH minor rev?
always use the latest one.
Which, combined with the possibility of releasing multiples per minor rev and no determinate time frame for the actual initial Centos minor release, really means nothing.
Well...
"Always use latest one" *plus* "look for the latest release announcement".
Like http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-announce/2015-March/021005.html
A cross-reference doesn't really seem necessary because usually hardware enablement is additive. Either CentOS is up to the version you need, or it isn't yet.
If you really _need_ a specific minor release and want to _stay_ on it, to my knowledge, that's not something CentOS has _ever_ done anyway. You can pay for Red Hat's "EUS", or, I think Scientific Linux actually does keep the ".y" releases separate (but I'm not sure of the details as to how that's implemented).
That last paragraph is EXACTLY the message we are trying to put out here. CentOS releases are NOT the same as EUS and have never been .. yet that seems to be what people expect. We want there to be no doubt on this issue.
I'm sorry, but I think you all have chosen a very poor way to put out a message.
For me at least, this deviation from both the past conventions, and from the current naming conventions of the upstream vendor has real and annoying consequences.
Soliciting our feedback *before* changing everything regarding release names would have been nice.