On 07/06/14 19:45, 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. > > 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. > > My honest feelings... > Yet another +1 If a change is REQUIRED, that change should happen upstream in RHEL and then filter down to CentOS - i.e, if RHEL-7.1406 were to be released then a change to CentOS-7.1406 would make sense.