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. I am just responding in a dialectic way to get more insights. > What is bad about being clear? Following implies that the context of argumentation is: "CentOS Project". So, what should be clear here - the minor version - but is it relevant? Relevancy means to be able to make a distinction between other minor versions. For example: in the virtual case of 7.1.1512 vs. 7.2.1511 it would be essential to use a minor number as infix and that is exactly the point that was discussed on "centos-devel" -> there are no other "branches" of CentOS 7 - only the current one. That makes a minor number obsolete. For a broader context: To answer the questions about the coherence to upstream: The point in time of the question leads directly to the answer e.g. 1. Whats the minor version number (y)? [asked today (2015-12-03)] 2. Current RHEL is 7.2 released 2015-11-19 3. Current CentOS is 7 (1503) implies 2015-03 4. Minor numbers are in the set of natural numbers 5. 2015-03 < 2015-11-19 => 7.y < 7.2 => 7.1 The most workload on this 5 steps was at step 2 (search for the availability date). My very personal conclusion: Upstream should use a timestamp :-) and continue to using minor version numbers because of the AUS, ELS and EUS branches. CentOS does not need minor version numbers. -- LF