On 09/06/14 04:41 PM, Morten Stevens wrote: > > > 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 Another +1. Staying in lock-step with RHEL is very important to me. -- Digimer Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.ca/w/ What if the cure for cancer is trapped in the mind of a person without access to education?