On 06/09/2014 12:55 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > Well I think this is more about defining what people think of as change > and no change. Being the internet I am sure there are some set of people > who will define any new release as being a change in the core product > and thus a breakage. And there will be people who are at the other end > of the spectrum and ok with all the change in the world as long as the > name is CentOS and the first number is similar to the RHEL name. And > then there are a ton of definitions of what is change and what isn't in > between. > > So a better discussion is I think people defining what they would accept > as being 'change' and what is not change. The board has stated their > view of change and various users are defining in a piecemeal way what is > their definition of change. I think that it might be better if the users > state a bit clearer so that the board has a definite idea of where the > lines are. It's more than just a cosmetic change. Any 3rd party installer that relies on the version number in /etc/redhat-release will break as a result of this change (bad practice, but it happens). Any manager that does not understand that CentOS 7.YYMM == RHEL 7.X will be much harder to convince. This is most definitely a break from compatibility. Peter