On 04.11.2016 15:29, 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 don't really mind any particular version scheme getting used but why not use it consistently? Right now the ISOs are named like this:
CentOS-7-x86_64-NetInstall-1511.iso
Why isn't that name consistent with the tree versioning e.g.:
CentOS-7.2.1511-x86_64-NetInstall.iso
That would make things less ambiguous.
Regards, Dennis