On 06/07/2014 06:56 AM, Tim Bell wrote: > A few quick thoughts.... > > 1. Does the SIG need a naming convention also, e.g. > > CentOS-7.1407-Cloud-140805 > > i.e. the cloud SIG based build done on 5th August 2014 based off the CentOS 7 tree in July 2014. > > 2. The minor release number is not in the naming convention. Is this a question of length ? > > CentOS-7.0-1407 > > I am thinking as we get to beta releases of 7.1, having a mechanism to name the beta releases independently of the production ones would be useful. > > We have debated the SIG TAG, and then left if open for list debate as there are a few options here. Firstly, if a SIG can achieve everything it needs in terms of mounting optional repo's and adding options to the installer non harming then there is no need require a SIG tag. However if a SIG requires a release that changes the kernel and wants to create an ISO for that then it clearly requires the use of a SIG tag as we can't break core. The 3rd case would be if a SIG release and does not affect the core ISO / install, just in it's own repo, it may want to indicate to users it has made a release. We came up with a few ideas around these with various merits which I can post a bit later to list. This aspect we should work through with the SIGs on this list. We may want to try release a few SIGs before we fully define the SIG TAG rules. Carl.