Am 03.12.2015 um 19:35 schrieb Greg Lindahl <lindahl@xxxxxxx>:
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 12:26:08PM +0100, Leon Fauster wrote:
>>>
>>> And the way I'd figure this out from the centos website is?
>
> Note that I was asking about the release numbering, not the release
> itself. And while you're suggesting where I could find out more or
> take part in the discussion, Leon, keep in mind that I've been using
> CentOS since it was first released, I am on the -dev mailing list, and
> I was a part of the discussion of this new numbering scheme when it
> was first mooted - my recommendation was that if you did it at all,
> you should use names like 7.2.1511. And I recall that the decision
> was to use release names like 7.2.1511.
>
> If we can get the version numbering scheme right here:
>
> [lindahl@rd ~]$ more /etc/centos-release
> CentOS Linux release 7.1.1503 (Core)
>
> {note the .1. in the name}
>
> Why can't we get it right on the website, and the mailing list? Why
> should I have to look at the bottom of a webpage to figure out the
> mapping, when we could all say 7.2.1511?
Just to be clear; I'm also motivated like you to understand
why this was voted by the CentOS Board. I am just responding
in a dialectic way to get more insights.
> What is bad about being clear?
Following implies that the context of argumentation is: "CentOS Project".
So, what should be clear here - the minor version - but is it relevant?
Relevancy means to be able to make a distinction between other minor
versions. For example: in the virtual case of 7.1.1512 vs. 7.2.1511 it
would be essential to use a minor number as infix and that is exactly the
point that was discussed on "centos-devel" -> there are no other "branches"
of CentOS 7 - only the current one. That makes a minor number obsolete.
For a broader context:
To answer the questions about the coherence to upstream:
The point in time of the question leads directly to the answer e.g.
1. Whats the minor version number (y)? [asked today (2015-12-03)]
2. Current RHEL is 7.2 released 2015-11-19
3. Current CentOS is 7 (1503) implies 2015-03
4. Minor numbers are in the set of natural numbers
5. 2015-03 < 2015-11-19 => 7.y < 7.2 => 7.1
The most workload on this 5 steps was at step 2 (search for the availability date).
My very personal conclusion: Upstream should use a timestamp :-) and continue to using
minor version numbers because of the AUS, ELS and EUS branches. CentOS does not need minor
version numbers.
--
LF
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
