On 12/07/2015 06:31 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 07/12/15 04:11, Greg Lindahl wrote:
Oh, wait: CentOS, love it or leave it.
I hope its not that drastic!
As a member of the user community, it's hard to see it any other way.
I want to be fair to everyone, so I'll acknowledge that Greg was making
an ass of himself. He said so, himself. I also think that the question
of what release the problem occurred on is irrelevant. The relevant
question is the version of the kernel package, not the centos-release
package.
But that aside, I think that Greg was right in that the version notation
used in the wiki (https://wiki.centos.org/Download) is unnecessarily
inconsistent with older releases. The rpm version for centos-release is
7-1.1503. The version reflected in /etc/centos-release is 7.1.1503.
But text on the wiki omits a portion of that version number. Greg was
consistent and (in my opinion) clear that he was suggesting that the
wiki be consistent with the numbering used elsewhere.
Johnny's response ignored that suggestion completely, and defended the
version numbering scheme, which was not in question. And in his very
first response, he said, "CentOS-7 Base OS is still there, it is free
for anyone to use ... If you don't want to use it.. That is your choice."
Can you see why that would be interpreted as "love it or leave it?"
It has been my impression for a long time that the CentOS developers are
reluctant to engage the community in contributing to the project, and
this is a fairly good example of why that impression endures.
There are multiple issues and fallouts etc here, start from the fact
that the point number isnt really much other than a datestamp
Arguably, that's all any version number is. Isn't it?
But your response, like Johnny's ignores what Greg actually suggested:
that the wiki use a version number consistent with the rpm version
number and the content of /etc/centos-release.
Greg's pointed out the website version reporting, and its a great point
- however, note that we are already working on fixing that side of
things by bringing all Download specific info into 1 place, and doing
this on the wiki ( wiki.centos.org/Download )
Yes, the wiki is where the problem is. That's the same URL that Greg
mentioned originally.
This is also primarily driven by the fact that we've
struggled to keep the site updated and relevant, whereas the wiki with
its much larger user base and contributor base has far better churn.
I would interpret that as an invitation to participate in the project,
but I created an account on the wiki and don't seem to be able to edit
anything.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
