Am 03.12.2015 um 11:39 schrieb Greg Lindahl <lindahl at pbm.com>:> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 11:28:10AM +0100, Leon Fauster wrote: >> Am 03.12.2015 um 11:08 schrieb Greg Lindahl <lindahl at pbm.com>: >>> I wanted to help you by making sure that you were on the most recent >>> version, but, looking at the Centos.org website I was unable to figure >>> out if 7.2 was the tip. 7.1503? Is that 7.2? Beats me. >> >> CentOS 7.1511 (aka '7.2') not yet released ... > > And the way I'd figure this out from the centos website is?when it is released. Currently its in the pipeline, see also: https://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories/CR and for the numbering concept (Section: Numbering): https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-announce/2014-July/020393.html> I mean, I'm used to the concept that CentOS used to say the > current version is 6.3 when RHEL 6.4 was released but hadn't > made it through the CentOS pipeline. > > But how am I supposed to figure out that CentOS 7.1503 < 7.2 ? > > I suppose I should blame myself for not being a bigger ass that CentOS > didn't adopt my proposal of saying Centos 7.1.1503 vs 7.2.1511. But > really, does ANYONE think the current scheme is clear?to communicate proposals -> participate :-). Check https://wiki.centos.org/Contribute and especially the CentOS Developer's list, where it was discussed. -- LF
On 12/03/2015 04:26 AM, Leon Fauster wrote:> Am 03.12.2015 um 11:39 schrieb Greg Lindahl <lindahl at pbm.com>: >> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 11:28:10AM +0100, Leon Fauster wrote: >>> Am 03.12.2015 um 11:08 schrieb Greg Lindahl <lindahl at pbm.com>: >>>> I wanted to help you by making sure that you were on the most recent >>>> version, but, looking at the Centos.org website I was unable to figure >>>> out if 7.2 was the tip. 7.1503? Is that 7.2? Beats me. >>> CentOS 7.1511 (aka '7.2') not yet released ... >> And the way I'd figure this out from the centos website is? > when it is released. Currently its in the pipeline, see also: > > https://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories/CR > > and for the numbering concept (Section: Numbering): > > https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-announce/2014-July/020393.htmlThat numbering concept (for 7.0 at least) makes sense: "CentOS 7.0-1406 introduces a new numbering scheme that we want to further develop into the life of CentOS-7. The 0 component maps to the upstream realease, whose code this release is built from. The 1406 component indicates the monthstamp of the code included in the release ( in this case, June 2014 ). By using a monthstamp we are able to respin and reissue updated media for things like container and cloud images, that are regularly refreshed, while still retaining a connection to the base distro version." Those who care about the upstream version knew that this was derived from RHEL 7.0. Those who don't care about upstream versions but want to track monthly rebuilds of cloud images, etc., could distinguish between "1406" and (for example) "1407". But somewhere along the line for 7.1, the "component that maps to the upstream release" was dropped, and we got just 7 (1503). I don't recall seeing where or how that decision was made; is there a link someone can provide to the relevant discussion in centos-devel? -Greg
On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 12:26:08PM +0100, Leon Fauster wrote:> >> CentOS 7.1511 (aka '7.2') not yet released ... > > > > And the way I'd figure this out from the centos website is?Note that I was asking about the release numbering, not the release itself. And while you're suggesting where I could find out more or take part in the discussion, Leon, keep in mind that I've been using CentOS since it was first released, I am on the -dev mailing list, and I was a part of the discussion of this new numbering scheme when it was first mooted - my recommendation was that if you did it at all, you should use names like 7.2.1511. And I recall that the decision was to use release names like 7.2.1511. If we can get the version numbering scheme right here: [lindahl at rd ~]$ more /etc/centos-release CentOS Linux release 7.1.1503 (Core) {note the .1. in the name} Why can't we get it right on the website, and the mailing list? Why should I have to look at the bottom of a webpage to figure out the mapping, when we could all say 7.2.1511? What is bad about being clear? -- greg
Am 03.12.2015 um 19:35 schrieb Greg Lindahl <lindahl at pbm.com>:> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 12:26:08PM +0100, Leon Fauster wrote: >>> >>> And the way I'd figure this out from the centos website is? > > Note that I was asking about the release numbering, not the release > itself. And while you're suggesting where I could find out more or > take part in the discussion, Leon, keep in mind that I've been using > CentOS since it was first released, I am on the -dev mailing list, and > I was a part of the discussion of this new numbering scheme when it > was first mooted - my recommendation was that if you did it at all, > you should use names like 7.2.1511. And I recall that the decision > was to use release names like 7.2.1511. > > If we can get the version numbering scheme right here: > > [lindahl at rd ~]$ more /etc/centos-release > CentOS Linux release 7.1.1503 (Core) > > {note the .1. in the name} > > Why can't we get it right on the website, and the mailing list? Why > should I have to look at the bottom of a webpage to figure out the > mapping, when we could all say 7.2.1511?Just to be clear; I'm also motivated like you to understand why this was voted by the CentOS Board. I am just responding in a dialectic way to get more insights.> What is bad about being clear?Following implies that the context of argumentation is: "CentOS Project". So, what should be clear here - the minor version - but is it relevant? Relevancy means to be able to make a distinction between other minor versions. For example: in the virtual case of 7.1.1512 vs. 7.2.1511 it would be essential to use a minor number as infix and that is exactly the point that was discussed on "centos-devel" -> there are no other "branches" of CentOS 7 - only the current one. That makes a minor number obsolete. For a broader context: To answer the questions about the coherence to upstream: The point in time of the question leads directly to the answer e.g. 1. Whats the minor version number (y)? [asked today (2015-12-03)] 2. Current RHEL is 7.2 released 2015-11-19 3. Current CentOS is 7 (1503) implies 2015-03 4. Minor numbers are in the set of natural numbers 5. 2015-03 < 2015-11-19 => 7.y < 7.2 => 7.1 The most workload on this 5 steps was at step 2 (search for the availability date). My very personal conclusion: Upstream should use a timestamp :-) and continue to using minor version numbers because of the AUS, ELS and EUS branches. CentOS does not need minor version numbers. -- LF
On 03/12/15 13:58, Greg Bailey wrote:> Those who care about the upstream version knew that this was derived > from RHEL 7.0. Those who don't care about upstream versions but want to > track monthly rebuilds of cloud images, etc., could distinguish between > "1406" and (for example) "1407". But somewhere along the line for 7.1, > the "component that maps to the upstream release" was dropped, and we > got just 7 (1503). I don't recall seeing where or how that decision was > made; is there a link someone can provide to the relevant discussion in > centos-devel?i dont see it being dropped, on my completely updated machine i still see the fully qualified numbering in /etc/centos-release ( as an example ) ? -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc