On Sat, 7 Jun 2014, Akemi Yagi wrote: > On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> wrote: > >> 0. CentOS-6.1011 >> 1. CentOS-6.1105 >> 2. CentOS-6.1112 >> 3. CentOS-6.1206 >> 4. CentOS-6.1302 >> 5. CentOS-6.1311 >> >> As you can see, the minor numbers also match in the list (6.3 matches >> 6.1206) ... it's very easy to see that there are 6, 7, 7, 8, and 9 >> months between releases, etc. >> >> Thoughts? > > After having read all the detailed explanations, I still do not see > good enough justifications / rationale for changing the release > naming. +1 > The concept of 'supporting only the latest release' is quite simple > and easy to explain to users. I don't think the current proposal would > make it any easier. As Trevor said, we just say, "CentOS 6.4 is no > longer supported. Please update to 6.5". On the other hand, > "CentOS-6.1302 is no longer supported. Please update to CentOS-6.1311 > because it is June of 2014 today" sounds a bit cumbersome. +1 Currently I can look at the release and say I am on C-6.5 and RHEL is on 6.5 so I am current. With the new way, I need a chart to tell what matches what. I do not see how that is easier/better. IMO, If you need something for the sigs, they should add it to their packages/repos and leave core the way has been since the beginning. Regards, -- Tom me at tdiehl.org Spamtrap address me123 at tdiehl.org