On 06/08/2014 01:26 AM, Jim Perrin wrote: > >> I think that given the difficulty that we already have in persuading >> people to update to 6.$latest from 6.$prehistoric that produciing even >> more frequent variants is not such a good idea. > > This is one of the reasons behind the idea of using dates. We could more > easily show someone that what they were using was prehistoric because > the date would be in their string. Do you think this would be more or > less helpful on irc to be able to say something like "look, it says > right in your release string that you're 2 years behind on updates"? I think that it's just as easy to tell someone, "CentOS 6.1 is over two years old" in IRC, and I have yet to see anyone argue with that particular point. The usual argument is either "$boss|$company_policies won't let me me" or "$proprietary_app is not certified to run on any version newer than 6.1". Neither of those arguments will be helped by changing the version scheme, imo. Maybe I'm missing something, but I honestly don't see how this will help SIGs, also I'm not entirely sure that it's the best course of action to put the needs of SIGs above the core value of maintaining RHEL compatibility. Also is this supposed need to help the SIGs theoretical or is it an actual problem that we are seeing now? Can the problem be spelled out in more detail and try to find a better way to tackle it as a community? Probably needless to say at this point, but I tend to want to stay with the status quo, for whatever value my own opinion holds. Peter