On 07/02/2014 10:31 AM, Ned Slider wrote: > 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? no, we've never actually done a .anything relese, refer back to the centos-release rpms from the last 10 odd years :) eg: centos-6 is at the moment : 6-5.11.2 It was always CentOS-4 or 5 or 6, it will be CentOS-7 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? no it wont, we use the tag that matches upstream's release stamp, so will stay 1406 -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc