+1 for maintaining the current versioning scheme, I have not heard any reason to cinvince me itherwise, only straw man arguments such as these. This could be a very expensive change, were it to happen. That is, expensive as in loss of market share and creation of confusion. On June 10, 2014 12:33:29 AM CEST, Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> wrote: >On 06/09/2014 04:05 PM, Peter wrote: >> On 06/10/2014 05:21 AM, Jim Perrin wrote: >>> Indeed. In some areas, we already are. That's what we want to turn >>> around. This is the fundamental reason why we can't simply rest and >keep >>> doing what we've been doing. Even if we're flawless in the core >mission, >>> we'd still be ignoring emerging areas where we must grow to survive. >> I don't think I've seen anyone argue against SIGs here. I think most >> people on this list understand the importance of SIGs to CentOS and >the >> future that CentOS will have with them. What I see is many people >here >> saying that SIGs should not dictate the direction of the core OS, >that >> needs to remain pure to upstream. > >No one is saying that anything in the Core OS is changing ... the Core >OS will be the Core OS. It will be ONLY packages in the RHEL tree and >it will not contain anything extra. That is not the issue here. The >issue is, people think they can run CentOS-6.4 after 6.5 is released >and >it is the same as running RHEL-6.4 AUS/EUS ... and its not. Our >numbering is not like their numbering and that is causing massive >confusion that we need to fix. One can absolutely, positively not stay >behind and have security. It is very dangerous. > >Add to that the fact that the SIGs also may need to have a new >installer >be created between RHEL releases, so we may (or may not ... only time >will tell) need to create some new install trees. > >None of that adds packages into the os/ or updates/ directory that is >not in RHEL ... that will be the same and people will have to opt-in to >get anything that is not Core .. just like they do now. > ><snip> > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >CentOS-devel mailing list >CentOS-devel at centos.org >http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20140610/61d08a58/attachment-0007.html>