[CentOS-devel] CentOS 7 and release numbering

[Mustafa Muhammad]

On Jun 21, 2014 1:42 PM, "Johnny Hughes" <johnny at centos.org> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

Why we don't have the sources? Isn't Red Hat obliged to give the sources
with the binary packages?

> 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?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS-devel mailing list
> CentOS-devel at centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20140622/827a72c4/attachment.html>