On 2 July 2014 03:38, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists at karan.org> wrote: > 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 > > Ohhh. you know if I had realized that was what you were talking about this whole time :). 7-core-1406 [though I would prefer 201406] and your bikeshed needs to be pale yellow. -- Stephen J Smoogen. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20140702/b86aac72/attachment-0007.html>