On 12/03/2015 12:53 PM, Leon Fauster wrote:
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.
Major.Minor.Patch seems pretty standard, I've wondered why it wasn't
done that way myself.
--
-=-
Sent my from my laptop, may not be able to respond timely
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
