[CentOS-devel] CentOS 7 and release numbering

[Johnny Hughes]

On 06/21/2014 05:00 AM, Ron Yorston wrote:
> Johnny Hughes wrote:
>> What better way to communicate that they are not standalone but are all
>> only part of the MAJOR release and a POINT IN TIME part of that major
>> release than to name them "<MAJOR RELEASE>.<POINT IN TIME>" ?
> The current scheme represents <POINT IN TIME> as an integer that starts
> from zero and increments with each minor release.
>
> I remain unconvinced that a YYMM representation of <POINT IN TIME> is
> any better.

It is not really better at conveying time, no.  It is the same at
conveying the time.

Where it is better is in denoting that Red Hat is doing things inside
the 6.4 tree (again, just following the above example) while CentOS does
not do those things inside our 6.4 tree after we release 6.5.  We can't
do them, even if we want to as we don't have the sources.

That is my whole point .. we need a way to convey a similarity and one
point, while not being similar always.  Having the exact same name does
not convey that.

How do you suggest we do that and not ignore that there are potential
differences after we move to the next point release?  Do we just ignore
that part?

Everything on this list that is newer than 2013-11-20 is in the RHEL 6.4
tree ... we don't and can't release any of it for our 6.4:

https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/rhel-server-6.4.aus-errata.html

So our 6.4 tree is now significantly divergent from the Red Hat 6.4
tree, and our 6.4 tree is in the vault and not live anymore ... don't we
have an obligation to our users to make sure they understand that there
are differences?

UserA has some software that only works with 6.4 .. he sees CentOS-6.4
in the vault and grabs that to use with his software.  He can't upgrade
to 6.5 because it will break his software.  Staying on our 6.4 tree will
leave UserA vulnerable with security issues.  If he is instead on the
Red Hat 6.4 tree, he is still going to be able to get updates.  Do we
not have any obligation to change our numbering so that UserA can more
easily tell this hugely major difference?

We don't really have the upstream point releases, we have different
point releases.  We release the main line CentOS-5, CentOS-6, and
CentOS-7 ... we do point in time respins of ISOs and install trees,  Red
Hat does all this and a bunch more things also inside point releases. 
These two things are not EXACTLY the same ever, but they are very
similar for one 6 to 8 month "period of time" (while they are OUR active
release and Red Hat's active release) and they become increasing
divergent after that point in time.  That is what I am trying to convey
here.  Some people will argue that people have to pay for that other REd
Hat 6.4 tree ... sure they do.  They also have to pay the initial Red
Hat 6.4 tree, they have to pay for everything there, thats how it works. 

Everyone here thinks that we should just leave the point releases as is,
knowing that now Red Hat is doing completely different things inside
point releases and that we don't have an obligation to point out the
differences?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20140621/a1189f83/attachment.sig>