On 04.11.2016 15:29, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> 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 ...
I don't really mind any particular version scheme getting used but why
not use it consistently? Right now the ISOs are named like this:
CentOS-7-x86_64-NetInstall-1511.iso
Why isn't that name consistent with the tree versioning e.g.:
CentOS-7.2.1511-x86_64-NetInstall.iso
That would make things less ambiguous.
Regards,
Dennis
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
