On 11/04/2016 09:15 AM, Mark Haney wrote: > That's all well and good, but how about you actually include the minor > number AND the release date? I.e. 7.3-1104 for CentOS 7.3 released today, > for example. I'm all for the SIGs to keep track of their own upstreams, > but surely there's a better way to do this that doesn't annoy the heck out > of us Joe-Blows out here. A lot of us don't have the time (or inclination) > to deal with oddball version discrepancies when there really doesn't need > to be. > > I mean, there are dozens of Ubuntu distros and they all use the same basic > versioning schemes. (Maybe not a completely fair example, but still.) > Isn't the idea with CentOS to be a method of generating a larger testing > base and interest in RHEL and it's products? If not, that's how I've > always seen it, incorrect or not. I said on the tree it will be 7.3.1611 .. and I don't get to make the call on this. This was battle was fought two years ago. We don't have to like it. We also don't need to fight it again. I do what I am told, and I have been told what to do ...
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
