2014-07-02 16:35 GMT+02:00 Karanbir Singh <mail-lists at karan.org>: > 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. No, it doesn't. Close to upstream means 7.0 and not 7-0-core-1406. CentOS 7.0 will reflect RHEL 7.0 codebase / code age. Based on upstream. CentOS 7-0-core-1406 will confuse many people. Best regards, Morten