On 06/21/2014 05:32 AM, Ned Slider wrote: > On 21/06/14 02:37, Johnny Hughes wrote: >> On 06/20/2014 04:50 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>> But, as far as I could understand, changing 7.0 to 7.20140620 (or what >>> ever date) and changing NOTHING ELSE?, as it was suggested, it would not >>> change a thing. >> You are EXACTLY right ... it will not change anything about the distro >> at all .. EXCEPT be a better description of what CentOS is. A point in >> time rebuild of the major branch. It has the "major" and it has the >> "point in time". It perfectly describes exactly what CentOS is. >> >>> It was clearly said that there will not be any >>> intermittent releases in between 7.0 and 7.1 for example, so this change >>> should only be a PR stunt, and all that comes to mind is that Red Hat >>> would like to brake a bond between RHEL and CentOS and convert it into >>> another staging area, "learn how to work with CentOS and then you can >>> switch to RHEL", and to, in doing so, reduce the number of companies who >>> will dare to use CentOS instead of RHEL. > So here we have the essence of the issue, clearly described. > > It may be "a better description of what CentOS is" but it's also is a > step further removed from RHEL. It's making a change that isn't a direct > consequence of legal or trademark issues. > > So there is no technical issue to solve or overcome, in the core distro. > It's a rebranding exercise to overcome a perception people may or may > not have about point releases. > > As many others have said, I believe such a change does more damage than > good for all the reasons previously mentioned numerous times. But, CentOS started out with different numbering that Red Hat. They were doing 3 update 3 and not 3.3. They usually abbreviated it 3u3 and not 3.3. We were different because we did not necessarily want to convey we did everything, only that we were similar at that one point in time. Then Red Hat changed their numbering. So CentOS and Red Hat did not always have the same numbering. CentOS still grew to become the most used Linux distribution in the world and Twitter, Facebook, GoDaddy, and any other number of companies still chose to use it for their needs. It is in use in colleges all over the world. In movie maker rendering farms. The number did not have to be the same for those things to happen. It does not have to be the same now either. If CentOS was identical, over the lifetime of the product, then I would want it to be numbered the same. But it is not the same, so why do we want the same number? Now I see confusion in the name that I would like to resolve, and at the release of a completely new main branch seems the perfect time to do it. So everyone thinks that 7.1406 better describes what a CentOS release really is, but they don't want to do it. Interesting. > Johnny - it's not that anyone doesn't trust you (or KB), it's more that > everyone knows once you start chipping away at the edges of the > cornerstone of the project, it's no longer a cornerstone. And we all > know from personal experience that it's easy to have principles as an > individual, but sometimes it's not so easy when you are employed by an > employer > whose goals are in conflict with your own goals as you highlight below. > Please don't take this as an affront to your own personal standards, > it's not intended to be - I'm just trying to express what everyone is > feeling. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20140621/e8a3b204/attachment-0007.sig>