On 06/08/2014 05:12 PM, Brian Stinson wrote: >> 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? > +1 to maintaining the version numbers as they are. It's clear that the > SIGs will add significant value to CentOS ecosystem, but they (IMHO) > shouldn't supplant CentOS's primary asset: technical _and_ colloquial > interoperability with RHEL. I think I understand the motivation for > another versioning scheme, but surely there's a way to namespace > everything such that it doesn't affect those who prefer the vanilla > distribution. I've read through the the responses so for and the main concern seems to be understanding the linkage between upstream and CentOS. Am I correct in that? Carl.