On 03/31/2015 05:56 PM, Always Learning wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2015-03-31 at 13:28 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>
>> On 03/31/2015 12:31 PM, Greg Bailey wrote:
>>> CentOS-7.0-1406-x86_64-DVD.iso
>>> CentOS-7-x86_64-DVD-1503.iso
>
>> Please take a look at the "Archived Versions", and the Release Announcement:
>>
>> They both tell you that 7 (1503) is derived from Red Hat Enterprise
>> Linux 7.1 Sources. So, yes, this release, that you quoted in the
>> Subject, is indeed exactly what you said.
>>
>> And yes, this is how we are now numbering CentOS releases for 7 and
>> greater.
>
> Isn't that illogical ?
>
> If there is:-
>
> CentOS-7.0-1406-x86_64-DVD.iso
>
> then the next one should logically be named:-
>
> CentOS-7-1503-x86_64-DVD.iso
>
> assuming sub-version numbers have been abolished by Centos.
>
> Jumbled confusion, like CentOS-7-x86_64-DVD-1503.iso, is messy and
> illogical.
>
> What is preventing Centos adopting a simple, neat, tidy, sensible and
> logical approach ? For example:
>
> {major version}-{build number}-{architecture}-{media}.iso ?
>
> That is method I would use.
>
> Thank you.
>
This was discussed on the CentOS-Devel mailing list and approved by the
CentOS Board. It is what we are using in the future. I suggest you
become familiar with it.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
