On Thu, April 2, 2015 15:25, Jim Perrin wrote: > > > On 04/02/2015 01:28 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote: > >> >> Soliciting our feedback *before* changing everything regarding >> release names would have been nice. > > We did. > > http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2015-February/012873.html > > You mean this? On: Sun Feb 22 23:19:42 UTC 2015 Karanbir Singh mail-lists at karan.org wrote: >> We have also decided to split the /etc/redhat-release link >> to /etc/centos-release and use that as a way to better >> indicate what codebase the running CentOS Linux instance >> was derived from. >> >> Examples of what these files will look like in say March 2015 >> ( if .1 is released upstream by then ): >> >> ------------------- >> /etc/centos-release: >> CentOS Linux release 7.1.1503 (Core) >> >> /etc/redhat-release >> Derived from Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7.1 (Source) Hmmmmm. I wonder how the proposed 7.1.1503 became 7.1503 in practice. Bait and switch? Personally I do not care one way or the other what RH tells Centos to call itself. The priests can decide and the faithful can either put up with it or change pews. But I find it somewhat distressing to view otherwise intelligent people for whom I have a great deal of personal regard debase themselves with patently inadequate, and frequently deliberately misleading, justifications for unpopular decisions. BTW. What happens if a bad ISO gets spun, released and then is replaced in the same month? Does it become: 7.1504_a?; 7.1504b?; 7.1504_1?; 7.150403? -- *** E-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel *** James B. Byrne mailto:ByrneJB at Harte-Lyne.ca Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca 9 Brockley Drive vox: +1 905 561 1241 Hamilton, Ontario fax: +1 905 561 0757 Canada L8E 3C3