On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> wrote: > On 11/04/2016 09:15 AM, Mark Haney wrote: > > That's all well and good, but how about you actually include the minor > > number AND the release date? I.e. 7.3-1104 for CentOS 7.3 released > today, > > for example. I'm all for the SIGs to keep track of their own upstreams, > > but surely there's a better way to do this that doesn't annoy the heck > out > > of us Joe-Blows out here. A lot of us don't have the time (or > inclination) > > to deal with oddball version discrepancies when there really doesn't need > > to be. > > > > I mean, there are dozens of Ubuntu distros and they all use the same > basic > > versioning schemes. (Maybe not a completely fair example, but still.) > > Isn't the idea with CentOS to be a method of generating a larger testing > > base and interest in RHEL and it's products? If not, that's how I've > > always seen it, incorrect or not. > > I said on the tree it will be 7.3.1611 .. and I don't get to make the > call on this. > > This was battle was fought two years ago. > > We don't have to like it. > > We also don't need to fight it again. > > I do what I am told, and I have been told what to do ... > > Who made the call? How do we petition those who made the call to change the call? Perhaps you can register our complaints at the board meeting? And yes, thanks for all your efforts. I apologize for bringing this up every time, but as a non-developer, this is the only venue for me, and those who feel the same as I do, to express our complete and utter displeasure for this decision. Johnny, you have more important things to do than respond to this. I'd like someone above you to address this again. Thanks, -- Matt Phelps System Administrator, Computation Facility Harvard - Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics mphelps at cfa.harvard.edu, http://www.cfa.harvard.edu