On 07/12/15 04:11, Greg Lindahl wrote: > On Sun, Dec 06, 2015 at 09:22:15PM -0500, Jonathan Billings wrote: >> On Sun, Dec 06, 2015 at 06:35:58PM +0000, Timothy Murphy wrote: >>> Always Learning wrote: >>> >>>> I always admire Johnny's prose, passion for Centos and his calm approach >>>> to everything. >>> >>> Agreed. >>> But two possibly OT and probably ignorant queries: >>> >>> 1. I am running a standard Centos 32-bit system on my home servers. >>> I keep them up-to-date, but have not re-booted for several months. >>> I see from /etc/centos-release that I am running 7.1. >>> If I re-booted would this become 7.2? >>> >>> 2. If so, is this kernel panic a widespread phenomenon? >> >> You're running the 32-bit AltArch build of CentOS? >> >> The /etc/centos-release is owned by the centos-release package, and >> the contents will be updated when you update that pacakge. A reboot >> won't change that. In the default x86_64 release, I think that you'd >> need to pull updates from the CR repo to get the 7.2.1511 packages, >> still. > > And just look at the confusion -- because the website almost never > mentions 7.1.1053 or 7.2.1511, it can be really hard to understand > this discussion -- one person using "7.1" and "7.2" and the other > using "7.2.1511". Good thing the 2nd person didn't use "7 (1511)", > like the website does. Note that there is a /etc/centos-release-upstream as well that identifies what ver of the upstream we are currently tracking. > Oh, wait: CentOS, love it or leave it. I hope its not that drastic! There are multiple issues and fallouts etc here, start from the fact that the point number isnt really much other than a datestamp, to who and how it gets used and for what purpose etc. But the thing that bothers me most is that the reason as to why we are doing this and how its implemented isnt clear to people on this thread. eg. when we were doing x.y, RHEL wasent. They were on a X release, and all the other point in time data was communicated outside of that scope ( eg in EL3 / 4 etc ). I believe being pragmatic around this, and delivering value into areas that needed it most is good thing for us and the userbase at large - however, if we are breaking systems for existing setup's then we should address that. I took onboard all the feedback from 7 release time and I believe the system we have in place now should work for most people ( no one has been able to demonstrate a problem space in the distro as such ). If the issue is around communication and how we export the metadata / mindset - I totally take on board that we've had serious issues in that space. Even the fact that there is a CR/ repo isnt something most people understand or even know about, its something we should fix. Greg's pointed out the website version reporting, and its a great point - however, note that we are already working on fixing that side of things by bringing all Download specific info into 1 place, and doing this on the wiki ( wiki.centos.org/Download ) - we are moving all version specific content away from the website; the net result being that the website becomes about the project, and the wiki becomes the defacto source for all things content ( linux distro, sig's content, user help etc ). This is also primarily driven by the fact that we've struggled to keep the site updated and relevant, whereas the wiki with its much larger user base and contributor base has far better churn. So lets workout what the tangible issues are, and then work on resolving those. I will end by saying that we have more than a few million monthly instances out there now, in container space, in cloud space, in developer instances - and all of those people have hugely benefited from the new visioning. I certainly dont want you to leave! regards -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc