Il 04/11/2016 15:29, Johnny Hughes ha scritto:
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 ...
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
7.3 or 1611 or codename where is the problem? Many users will call the
release 7.3 and other 1611, the result is the same, them all will use
centos and the distro will works fine.
I will call the new release 7.3 for non technician user and 1611 for
technician user.
Don't waste your time.
+1 Johnny.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
