Re: RHEL 7.3 released

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]



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



[Index of Archives]     [CentOS]     [CentOS Announce]     [CentOS Development]     [CentOS ARM Devel]     [CentOS Docs]     [CentOS Virtualization]     [Carrier Grade Linux]     [Linux Media]     [Asterisk]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Xorg]     [Linux USB]
  Powered by Linux