On 17/01/20 8:06 am, Lamar Owen wrote:> On 1/16/20 6:49 AM, Peter wrote: >> On 16/01/20 4:14 am, Brian Stinson wrote: >>> Release for CentOS Linux 8 (1911) >>> >>> We are pleased to announce the general availability of CentOS Linux 8. >> >> CentOS 8 was released in September 2019.? Don't you mean 8.1? > No, they mean CentOS 8 (1911).? This was hashed to death back in early > CentOS 7 days, so shouldn't need rehashing again......No, the hashing ove back then had nothing to do with dropping the minor release number. Doing that now is just making things way too confusing. Back then the vast majority of the community showed disapproval for even that new naming scheme, but the wishes of the community were ignored and the new naming scheme went ahead anyways. I doubt anything different will happen now.> Yeah, I know most people are going to call it 8.1,That's because it *is* 8.1 and calling it 8 (1911) is just confusing and ridiculous. Peter
Gianluca Cecchi
2020-Jan-16 23:03 UTC
[CentOS] [CentOS-announce] Release for CentOS Linux 8 (1911)
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 11:08 PM Peter <peter at pajamian.dhs.org> wrote:> On 17/01/20 8:06 am, Lamar Owen wrote: > > On 1/16/20 6:49 AM, Peter wrote: > >> On 16/01/20 4:14 am, Brian Stinson wrote: > >>> Release for CentOS Linux 8 (1911) > >>> > >>> We are pleased to announce the general availability of CentOS Linux 8. > >> > >> CentOS 8 was released in September 2019. Don't you mean 8.1? > > No, they mean CentOS 8 (1911). This was hashed to death back in early > > CentOS 7 days, so shouldn't need rehashing again...... > > No, the hashing ove back then had nothing to do with dropping the minor > release number. Doing that now is just making things way too confusing. > > Back then the vast majority of the community showed disapproval for even > that new naming scheme, but the wishes of the community were ignored and > the new naming scheme went ahead anyways. I doubt anything different > will happen now. > > > Yeah, I know most people are going to call it 8.1, > > That's because it *is* 8.1 and calling it 8 (1911) is just confusing and > ridiculous. > > > Peter >I think that the e-mail subject of the announcement could be a bit misleading. Also for 7.x the subject for the latest one, posted by Johnny, was: "Release for CentOS Linux 7 (1908) on the x86_64 Architecture" Actually at CentOS 7 time, after some discussions, developers accepted to have both "numbers" inside release information. For example on running systems you have - for 7.x On 7.6: # cat /etc/centos-release CentOS Linux release 7.6.1810 (Core) # lsb_release -r Release: 7.6.1810 On 7.7: # cat /etc/centos-release CentOS Linux release 7.7.1908 (Core) # lsb_release -r Release: 7.7.1908 And this has been maintained in 8.x too: On 8.0: # cat /etc/centos-release CentOS Linux release 8.0.1905 (Core) # lsb_release -r Release: 8.0.1905 On the just released 8.1 # cat /etc/centos-release CentOS Linux release 8.1.1911 (Core) # lsb_release -r Release: 8.1.1911 This is acceptable in my opinion from a final user point of view I'm not sure but possibly the origin of the loooong discussion thread was this one from Karanbir, if interested: https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2014-June/010444.html HIH, Gianluca
Johnny Hughes
2020-Jan-22 15:52 UTC
[CentOS] [CentOS-announce] Release for CentOS Linux 8 (1911)
On 1/16/20 5:03 PM, Gianluca Cecchi wrote:> On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 11:08 PM Peter <peter at pajamian.dhs.org> wrote: > >> On 17/01/20 8:06 am, Lamar Owen wrote: >>> On 1/16/20 6:49 AM, Peter wrote: >>>> On 16/01/20 4:14 am, Brian Stinson wrote: >>>>> Release for CentOS Linux 8 (1911) >>>>> >>>>> We are pleased to announce the general availability of CentOS Linux 8. >>>> >>>> CentOS 8 was released in September 2019. Don't you mean 8.1? >>> No, they mean CentOS 8 (1911). This was hashed to death back in early >>> CentOS 7 days, so shouldn't need rehashing again...... >> >> No, the hashing ove back then had nothing to do with dropping the minor >> release number. Doing that now is just making things way too confusing. >> >> Back then the vast majority of the community showed disapproval for even >> that new naming scheme, but the wishes of the community were ignored and >> the new naming scheme went ahead anyways. I doubt anything different >> will happen now. >> >>> Yeah, I know most people are going to call it 8.1, >> >> That's because it *is* 8.1 and calling it 8 (1911) is just confusing and >> ridiculous. >> >> >> Peter >> > > I think that the e-mail subject of the announcement could be a bit > misleading. > Also for 7.x the subject for the latest one, posted by Johnny, was: > > "Release for CentOS Linux 7 (1908) on the x86_64 Architecture" > > Actually at CentOS 7 time, after some discussions, developers accepted to > have both "numbers" inside release information. > > For example on running systems you have > > - for 7.x > On 7.6: > # cat /etc/centos-release > CentOS Linux release 7.6.1810 (Core) > > # lsb_release -r > Release: 7.6.1810 > > On 7.7: > # cat /etc/centos-release > CentOS Linux release 7.7.1908 (Core) > > # lsb_release -r > Release: 7.7.1908 > > And this has been maintained in 8.x too: > On 8.0: > # cat /etc/centos-release > CentOS Linux release 8.0.1905 (Core) > > # lsb_release -r > Release: 8.0.1905 > > On the just released 8.1 > # cat /etc/centos-release > CentOS Linux release 8.1.1911 (Core) > > # lsb_release -r > Release: 8.1.1911 > > This is acceptable in my opinion from a final user point of view > > I'm not sure but possibly the origin of the loooong discussion thread was > this one from Karanbir, if interested: > https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2014-June/010444.htmlLet's just say this: We are ALWAYS going to officially call the releases: 'CentOS 8 (1911)' and 'CentOS 7 (1908)' We are going to do it regardless of who does like it or who does not like it (myself included). It is just the way it is and how it will be. It has been this way since the original CentOS 7 release and it is not ever changing. Thanks, Johnny Hughes -------------- 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/20200122/682c75f1/attachment.sig>