On 02/07/14 09:23, Karanbir Singh wrote: > Hi, > > On 06/25/2014 04:50 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote: >> Note: this tree now has a centos-release that implements the scope of >> change we were talking about in the numbering thread. I went through >> quite a few permutations and what we have here seems like the best >> middle ground to be on. I am also going to try and circle back to some >> of the RH folks to make sure they are ok with how we message around >> where the CentOS Linux release is built from. > > Still looking for feedback here - were pretty much at release grade at > this point and the number conversation needs to close off before we can > push to prod. > > The tree's from the last few days have still implemented the 7.1406 > scheme with almost no feedback, but for us to move forward we need a +1 > vote from people here. > -1 > the other scheme that is also on the options is the 7-0-1406 and > 7-0-core-1406 > I assume you mean 7.0-1406 and 7.0-core-1406 here? I am less opposed to these as they retain some semblance of a correlation to upstream 7.0, although presumably any release would now be .1407 rather than .1406 as we are now into July? > Finally, people have emailed and msged privately to say that having > different content in redhat-release V/s centos-release is causing them > some level of grief, so we'll roll that change back to make > redhat-release look like centos-release. > > There are going to be a few builds today, lets try and work through this > and get the final release out of the door. > > - KB >