[CentOS-devel] CentOS 7 and release numbering

[Manuel Wolfshant]

On 06/20/2014 02:15 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 06/20/2014 06:06 AM, Tim Bell wrote:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: centos-devel-bounces at centos.org [mailto:centos-devel-
>>> bounces at centos.org] On Behalf Of Greg Lindahl
>>> Sent: 20 June 2014 12:53
>>> To: The CentOS developers mailing list.
>>> Subject: Re: [CentOS-devel] CentOS 7 and release numbering
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 11:35:08AM +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm also assuming that my last email to this thread cleared all the
>>>> technical issues that people had brought up, if there are still some
>>>> outstanding now is a great time for people to raise those.
>>> I read it, and I'm still 'meh' on the concept. I think that there should be a
>>> compelling reason to diverge from upstream versioning, and I don't see it.
>>>
>>> The SIG problem is that either SIGs are at the tip, or not. Having different version
>>> names from upstream doesn't really help.
>>>
>>> The user problem is that either users are at the tip, or not. Having different
>>> version names might make that more obvious, but I bet that people who don't
>>> stay at the tip won't notice.
>>>
>>> I stay at the tip.  Having different version numbers from upstream merely
>>> confuses my coworkers. Hence, 'meh'.
>>>
>>> -- greg
>>>
>> I share Greg's perspective. I see the technical arguments but have not seen the benefits that justify the significant confusion.
>>
>> The communication problems you raise are exactly the ones that we will have with our user community. Given the difficulties you have explaining it to those on centos-devel, imagine how we'll be explaining it to our thousands of users, external support lines and management chains.
>>
>> I could explain a 7.0 or even 7.0.1406 but a 7.1406 with an associated wiki page would cause us real problems in the field.
>>
> You think it is much easier to explain a data breach costing your client
> in the field millions dollars because someone THOUGHT they had 7.1 EUS
> and all its security updates, just like RHEL has, when the tree is at
> 7.3?  We need to prevent people from thinking is OK to stay on an old
> tree, it absolutely is not.
>
adding mere digits to the name will not help in any way. as far as I 
have seen in #centos, most of those who do not update stay at a 
particular version in time because they do do not WANT to update not 
because they are not familiar with the concept or the need to update. 
"it works as it is, we are afrain that an update might break something". 
what most are not familiar with are unchanged ABI and backports. But 
changing the naming scheme will not help with that in any way.