On Dec 7, 2015, at 12:54 PM, Gordon Messmer <gordon.messmer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> It has been my impression for a long time that the CentOS developers are reluctant to engage the community in contributing to the project
Who is “contributing” here? Where’s the patch? All I see is a bunch of bikeshedding.
The new version numbering scheme was created to solve a real problem, which CentOS has been fighting for years.[*]
If you change anything about the version numbering scheme within the 7 line, you break automated workflows that were debugged and deployed a year ago. The time to make such a change is 8 at earliest, and I’d argue that switching *again* after the 7 effort would cause more problems than it solves.
Remember, this distro is about stability. Changing naming/numbering schemes in a way that breaks scripts is about as far from stability as you can get.
[*] With every release from CentOS 3.1 through 6.7, there was always a series of mailing list questions of the same basic form: “FooApp is only certified for CentOS 6.4, but CentOS 6.7 is out, and the vendor won’t update the certification, so how do I keep my servers on CentOS 6.4?” Just as there is no CentOS 7.2, only 7, there was no CentOS 6.4, only 6. The new scheme tries to make that clear.
It would actually *be* clear if the tail (CentOS) could wag the dog (Red Hat) here and get them to adopt the YYMM respin scheme.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
