Phil Schaffner wrote: > Well, how about backing up to the basic assumptions before suggesting > solutions. Just because the upstream with their much greater (paid) > resources seem to be going to a M.N release scheme, is CentOS > constrained to follow precisely in their footsteps? maybe, or maybe not. the issue here is that if VAR Mr.$X only supports a product on 5.3.1 and CentOS does not provide that, there is a problem. The landscape is littered with people / vendors / support people only recommending people stick within a specific release Update version ( which might be one of the driving forces behind upstreams decision to create this sub-release thing in the first place ). > What's wrong with > keeping the current scheme of following the latest release and > continuing to have M as a pointer to the latest M.N tree? If someone > REALLY needs the minor release[es] with associated updates, they can go > to the upstream for support; however, I suspect that would be a > relatively rare case. If the demand is there down the road, can always > re-evaluate the policy. ok, so for now - lets assume that we will not be doing the sub-release [1], then what can we do now to make sure that we provision in the ability to make this call at a later stage ? [1] although, if it happens upstream there will be a lot of people asking for it within CentOS as well, and to be honest - as long as we can, we should. -- Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : 2522219 at icq