CentOS - Apr 2015 - [CentOS-announce] Release for CentOS Linux 7 (1503 ) on x86_64

On 03/31/2015 05:56 PM, Always Learning wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 2015-03-31 at 13:28 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> 
>> On 03/31/2015 12:31 PM, Greg Bailey wrote:
>>> CentOS-7.0-1406-x86_64-DVD.iso
>>> CentOS-7-x86_64-DVD-1503.iso
> 
>> Please take a look at the "Archived Versions", and the
Release Announcement:
>>
>> They both tell you that 7 (1503) is derived from Red Hat Enterprise
>> Linux 7.1 Sources.  So, yes, this release, that you quoted in the
>> Subject, is indeed exactly what you said.
>>
>> And yes, this is how we are now numbering CentOS releases for 7 and
>> greater.
> 
> Isn't that illogical ?
> 
> If there is:-
> 
> 	CentOS-7.0-1406-x86_64-DVD.iso
> 
> then the next one should logically be named:-
> 
> 	CentOS-7-1503-x86_64-DVD.iso
> 
> assuming sub-version numbers have been abolished by Centos.
> 
> Jumbled confusion, like CentOS-7-x86_64-DVD-1503.iso, is messy and
> illogical.
> 
> What is preventing Centos adopting a simple, neat, tidy, sensible and
> logical approach ?  For example: 
> 
> {major version}-{build number}-{architecture}-{media}.iso ?
> 
> That is method I would use.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
This was discussed on the CentOS-Devel mailing list and approved by the
CentOS Board. It is what we are using in the future.  I suggest you
become familiar with it.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL:
<http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20150331/ed432bb1/attachment-0001.sig>

Johnny Hughes wrote:
>This was discussed on the CentOS-Devel mailing list and approved by the
>CentOS Board.
Yes, it was discussed at great length on centos-devel.  The core
developers proposed a date-based versioning system which met with
much opposition.  I certainly wasn't convinced by their arguments.
>It is what we are using in the future.  I suggest you become familiar
>with it.
You can call it what you like.  I'll still call it CentOS 7.1.

Ron

> This was discussed on the CentOS-Devel mailing list and approved by the
> CentOS Board. It is what we are using in the future.  I suggest you
> become familiar with it.
Obviously naming conventions should provide for an easy upstream vendor 
version reference?

On 04/01/2015 10:07 AM, Ron Yorston wrote:
> Johnny Hughes wrote:
>> This was discussed on the CentOS-Devel mailing list and approved by the
>> CentOS Board.
> 
> Yes, it was discussed at great length on centos-devel.  The core
> developers proposed a date-based versioning system which met with
> much opposition.  I certainly wasn't convinced by their arguments.
> 
>> It is what we are using in the future.  I suggest you become familiar
>> with it.
> 
> You can call it what you like.  I'll still call it CentOS 7.1.
as you should - the important thing is that we all know ( where 'we' is
the community at large, the consumers and the SIGs ) all have a frame of
reference that maps to the same target; different people have different
goal posts - and if your's involves a 7.1, please use it.

-- 
Karanbir Singh
+44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh
GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc

On 04/01/2015 11:45 AM, ????????? ???????? wrote:
>> This was discussed on the CentOS-Devel mailing list and approved by the
>> CentOS Board. It is what we are using in the future.  I suggest you
>> become familiar with it.
> 
> Obviously naming conventions should provide for an easy upstream vendor
> version reference?
does /etc/centos-release-upstream provide you with that ?


-- 
Karanbir Singh
+44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh
GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc