On 07/02/2014 03:30 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 4:52 AM, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists at karan.org> wrote: >> On 07/02/2014 10:38 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote: >>>> 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 >> >> This is a great example of why the date scheme is much better than the >> old one - it clearly reflects the state of code inside the release. > > What would that date actually reflect? The last change from upstream, > the date of the matching upstream release, or the CentOS release date? As i said, it would refleft ( as it does not ) the code age, and not a centos release. > I think what people want is to keep it closely tied to the upstream > identification. yes, which is what this achieves. -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc