On 08.06.2014 14:40, Ned Slider wrote: > 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. +1 also from my side In my opinion, the same version number as RHEL (upstream) is an integral part of CentOS. Best regards, Morten