Am 03.12.2015 um 22:28 schrieb Alice Wonder <alice at domblogger.net>: > 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: >>> >>> 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. This does not apply to distributions (compared to packaged software components). There exits no RHEL 7.1.5 or similar ... -- LF