Il 04/11/2016 15:29, Johnny Hughes ha scritto: > 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 ... > > > > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > 7.3 or 1611 or codename where is the problem? Many users will call the release 7.3 and other 1611, the result is the same, them all will use centos and the distro will works fine. I will call the new release 7.3 for non technician user and 1611 for technician user. Don't waste your time. +1 Johnny.