On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Peter <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
> My point is that there was a claim by the board that this particular
> change was discussed extensively on the -devel list. If it was then it
> should be quite easy to point out the post(s) in the archives where this
> particular discussion tool place.
>
The addition of a date reference makes sense to allow and identify
respins within the life of a minor rev, but...
There were alternatives proposed, like:
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2014-June/010940.html
but I can't see any 'discussion' about why the weird concept of using
the minor .0 in the initial iso name but dropping it out of subsequent
versions was better or chosen.
I see the directory created on vault.centos.org is surprisingly sane,
though, retaining the useful minor rev number.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
