On 06/22/2014 03:40 AM, Mustafa Muhammad wrote: > > > On Jun 21, 2014 1:42 PM, "Johnny Hughes" <johnny at centos.org > <mailto: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? > The Sources are available on git.centos.org. -------------- 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/20140622/fadcfe67/attachment-0007.sig>