Johnny Hughes wrote: >That is my whole point .. we need a way to convey a similarity and one >point, while not being similar always. Having the exact same name does >not convey that. No, it doesn't. But nor does using an entirely different naming scheme. The only way to convey the similarities and differences between RHEL and CentOS is to explain them, as you have done perfectly well on this thread. >How do you suggest we do that and not ignore that there are potential >differences after we move to the next point release? Do we just ignore >that part? No, the CentOS project will do what it's always done: explain what the differences are and why they exist. >So our 6.4 tree is now significantly divergent from the Red Hat 6.4 >tree, and our 6.4 tree is in the vault and not live anymore ... don't we >have an obligation to our users to make sure they understand that there >are differences? Of course. But changing the versioning scheme is no substitute for explaining the facts. Introducing a different versioning scheme to upstream just makes that explanation more complex. >UserA has some software that only works with 6.4 .. he sees CentOS-6.4 >in the vault and grabs that to use with his software. He can't upgrade >to 6.5 because it will break his software. Staying on our 6.4 tree will >leave UserA vulnerable with security issues. If he is instead on the >Red Hat 6.4 tree, he is still going to be able to get updates. Do we >not have any obligation to change our numbering so that UserA can more >easily tell this hugely major difference? The project has an obligation to point out that CentOS 6.4 is dead and buried. And that CentOS 6.4 is not RHEL 6.4. But doing that by calling it something other than CentOS 6.4 is just likely to add to UserA's confusion. >Everyone here thinks that we should just leave the point releases as is, >knowing that now Red Hat is doing completely different things inside >point releases and that we don't have an obligation to point out the >differences? Of course CentOS needs to point out the differences. But changing the versioning scheme isn't a prerequisite for that. Ron