On Jun 21, 2014 1:42 PM, "Johnny Hughes" <johnny at centos.org> wrote: > > On 06/21/2014 05:00 AM, Ron Yorston wrote: > > Johnny Hughes wrote: > >> What better way to communicate that they are not standalone but are all > >> only part of the MAJOR release and a POINT IN TIME part of that major > >> release than to name them "<MAJOR RELEASE>.<POINT IN TIME>" ? > > The current scheme represents <POINT IN TIME> as an integer that starts > > from zero and increments with each minor release. > > > > I remain unconvinced that a YYMM representation of <POINT IN TIME> is > > any better. > > It is not really better at conveying time, no. It is the same at > conveying the time. > > Where it is better is in denoting that Red Hat is doing things inside > the 6.4 tree (again, just following the above example) while CentOS does > not do those things inside our 6.4 tree after we release 6.5. We can't > do them, even if we want to as we don't have the sources. > Why we don't have the sources? Isn't Red Hat obliged to give the sources with the binary packages? > 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. > > 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? > > Everything on this list that is newer than 2013-11-20 is in the RHEL 6.4 > tree ... we don't and can't release any of it for our 6.4: > > https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/rhel-server-6.4.aus-errata.html > > 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? > > 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? > > We don't really have the upstream point releases, we have different > point releases. We release the main line CentOS-5, CentOS-6, and > CentOS-7 ... we do point in time respins of ISOs and install trees, Red > Hat does all this and a bunch more things also inside point releases. > These two things are not EXACTLY the same ever, but they are very > similar for one 6 to 8 month "period of time" (while they are OUR active > release and Red Hat's active release) and they become increasing > divergent after that point in time. That is what I am trying to convey > here. Some people will argue that people have to pay for that other REd > Hat 6.4 tree ... sure they do. They also have to pay the initial Red > Hat 6.4 tree, they have to pay for everything there, thats how it works. > > 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? > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20140622/827a72c4/attachment-0007.html>