[CentOS] RHEL 7.3 released

Fri Nov 4 17:20:15 UTC 2016
Dennis Jacobfeuerborn <dennisml at conversis.de>

On 04.11.2016 15:29, Johnny Hughes 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 ...

I don't really mind any particular version scheme getting used but why
not use it consistently? Right now the ISOs are named like this:


Why isn't that name consistent with the tree versioning e.g.:


That would make things less ambiguous.