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. On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Gianluca Cecchi <gianluca.cecchi at gmail.com> wrote:> On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Phelps, Matthew <mphelps at cfa.harvard.edu> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > 1. Is CentOS-7.3 done yet? Answer: NO! > > > > > > And it is NOT CentOS-7.3 .. it is CentOS-7 (1611) based on RHEL-7.3 > > > Sources. The main tree will be labeled '7.3.1611' on the mirrors > (along > > > side 7.0.1406 and 7.1.1503, and 7.2.1511, all of which are already > there) > > > > > > > > Obligatory objection to this version numbering scheme: > > > > Deviating from RHEL in such a basic way is crazy, dumb, stupid, annoying, > > wrong, etc, etc. > > > > There, done. > > > > > Please, before a new flame, please read all what related with release > numbering discussed on June 2014 thread of centos-devel mailing list: > https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2014-June/thread.html > > with subject > CentOS 7 and release numbering > > started here by Karanbir: > https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2014-June/010444.html > > Thanks, > Gianluca > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >-- Mark Haney ::: Senior Systems Engineer *VIF* *International Education* P.O. Box 3566 ::: Chapel Hill, N.C. 27515 ::: USA 919-265-5006 office Global learning for all. www.viflearn.com Find VIF on Facebook <http://facebook.com/VIFInternationalEducation> | Twitter <https://twitter.com/vifglobaled> | LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/company/vif-international-education> Recognized as a ?Best for the World? <http://bestfortheworld.bcorporation.net/> B Corp!
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 ... -------------- 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/20161104/ee456763/attachment.sig>
On Fri, November 4, 2016 9:29 am, 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 for one am perfectly happy with whatever scheme you guys follow. And I am really grateful to you for the great job you are doing! As IMHO all of us should who enjoy using results of your work (and RedHat, and all open source projects - if I go deeper) without helping much ourselves (I don't count mirrors some of us maintain as a big effort). Valeri> > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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 at centos.org > 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.
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> 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 ... > >Who made the call? How do we petition those who made the call to change the call? Perhaps you can register our complaints at the board meeting? And yes, thanks for all your efforts. I apologize for bringing this up every time, but as a non-developer, this is the only venue for me, and those who feel the same as I do, to express our complete and utter displeasure for this decision. Johnny, you have more important things to do than respond to this. I'd like someone above you to address this again. Thanks, -- Matt Phelps System Administrator, Computation Facility Harvard - Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics mphelps at cfa.harvard.edu, http://www.cfa.harvard.edu
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