On 1/23/20 5:23 AM, Simon Matter via CentOS wrote: >> On 1/16/20 5:03 PM, Gianluca Cecchi wrote: >>> On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 11:08 PM Peter <peter at pajamian.dhs.org> wrote: >>> >>>> On 17/01/20 8:06 am, Lamar Owen wrote: >>>>> On 1/16/20 6:49 AM, Peter wrote: >>>>>> On 16/01/20 4:14 am, Brian Stinson wrote: >>>>>>> Release for CentOS Linux 8 (1911) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We are pleased to announce the general availability of CentOS Linux >>>>>>> 8. >>>>>> >>>>>> CentOS 8 was released in September 2019. Don't you mean 8.1? >>>>> No, they mean CentOS 8 (1911). This was hashed to death back in early >>>>> CentOS 7 days, so shouldn't need rehashing again...... >>>> >>>> No, the hashing ove back then had nothing to do with dropping the minor >>>> release number. Doing that now is just making things way too >>>> confusing. >>>> >>>> Back then the vast majority of the community showed disapproval for >>>> even >>>> that new naming scheme, but the wishes of the community were ignored >>>> and >>>> the new naming scheme went ahead anyways. I doubt anything different >>>> will happen now. >>>> >>>>> Yeah, I know most people are going to call it 8.1, >>>> >>>> That's because it *is* 8.1 and calling it 8 (1911) is just confusing >>>> and >>>> ridiculous. >>>> >>>> >>>> Peter >>>> >>> >>> I think that the e-mail subject of the announcement could be a bit >>> misleading. >>> Also for 7.x the subject for the latest one, posted by Johnny, was: >>> >>> "Release for CentOS Linux 7 (1908) on the x86_64 Architecture" >>> >>> Actually at CentOS 7 time, after some discussions, developers accepted >>> to >>> have both "numbers" inside release information. >>> >>> For example on running systems you have >>> >>> - for 7.x >>> On 7.6: >>> # cat /etc/centos-release >>> CentOS Linux release 7.6.1810 (Core) >>> >>> # lsb_release -r >>> Release: 7.6.1810 >>> >>> On 7.7: >>> # cat /etc/centos-release >>> CentOS Linux release 7.7.1908 (Core) >>> >>> # lsb_release -r >>> Release: 7.7.1908 >>> >>> And this has been maintained in 8.x too: >>> On 8.0: >>> # cat /etc/centos-release >>> CentOS Linux release 8.0.1905 (Core) >>> >>> # lsb_release -r >>> Release: 8.0.1905 >>> >>> On the just released 8.1 >>> # cat /etc/centos-release >>> CentOS Linux release 8.1.1911 (Core) >>> >>> # lsb_release -r >>> Release: 8.1.1911 >>> >>> This is acceptable in my opinion from a final user point of view >>> >>> I'm not sure but possibly the origin of the loooong discussion thread >>> was >>> this one from Karanbir, if interested: >>> https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2014-June/010444.html >> >> >> Let's just say this: >> >> We are ALWAYS going to officially call the releases: >> >> 'CentOS 8 (1911)' and 'CentOS 7 (1908)' >> >> We are going to do it regardless of who does like it or who does not >> like it (myself included). >> >> It is just the way it is and how it will be. It has been this way since >> the original CentOS 7 release and it is not ever changing. > > Never, until the next change of course :-) > > Wasn't it like that because RHEL maintains multiple .X levels while CentOS > always only represents the current, newest level. So omitting the .X level > was intended to prevent such confusion we actually see. That is indeed the reasoning .. you can not stabilize on CentOS-8.0 and stay there after 8.1 RHEL source code is released .. because, 8.0 (at that point) is missing security updates that were included in 8.1. If you add those security updates, now you are running the code that 8.1 is based on. So, the 8.0 and 8.1 and 8.2 releases are nothing more than a single point in time of the overall CentOS Linux 8 release. The CentOS mirrors only test one version of CentOS-8 .. and that is the current version with all the updates installed. Red Hat does indeed provide to people extended support for point releases for RHEL .. they provide security updates for 8.0 for a period of time after 8.1 is released. CentOS does not do that. We never have. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20200130/fa3dd255/attachment-0004.sig>