On 12/03/2015 12:53 PM, Leon Fauster wrote: > Am 03.12.2015 um 19:35 schrieb Greg Lindahl <lindahl at pbm.com>: >> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 12:26:08PM +0100, Leon Fauster wrote: >>>> >>>> And the way I'd figure this out from the centos website is? >> >> Note that I was asking about the release numbering, not the release >> itself. And while you're suggesting where I could find out more or >> take part in the discussion, Leon, keep in mind that I've been using >> CentOS since it was first released, I am on the -dev mailing list, and >> I was a part of the discussion of this new numbering scheme when it >> was first mooted - my recommendation was that if you did it at all, >> you should use names like 7.2.1511. And I recall that the decision >> was to use release names like 7.2.1511. >> >> If we can get the version numbering scheme right here: >> >> [lindahl at rd ~]$ more /etc/centos-release >> CentOS Linux release 7.1.1503 (Core) >> >> {note the .1. in the name} >> >> Why can't we get it right on the website, and the mailing list? Why >> should I have to look at the bottom of a webpage to figure out the >> mapping, when we could all say 7.2.1511? > > > Just to be clear; I'm also motivated like you to understand > why this was voted by the CentOS Board. Major.Minor.Patch seems pretty standard, I've wondered why it wasn't done that way myself. -- -=- Sent my from my laptop, may not be able to respond timely