CentOS - Jan 2020 - [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.html

Let'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>

On 1/22/20 10:53 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:

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><mailto: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




Let'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


don't forget the contents of /etc/redhat-release:

cat /etc/redhat-release
CentOS Linux release 7.7.1908 (Core)

sorta official?






_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS at centos.org<mailto:CentOS at centos.org>
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos



--
Roger Wells, P.E.
leidos
221 Third St
Newport, RI 02840
401-847-4210 (voice)
401-849-1585 (fax)
roger.k.wells at leidos.com<mailto:roger.k.wells at leidos.com>

> 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.html
>
>
> Let'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.
Never, until the next change of course :-)

Wasn't it like that because RHEL maintains multiple .X levels while CentOS
always only represents the current, newest level. So omitting the .X level
was intended to prevent such confusion we actually see.

Simon

On 1/23/20 5:23 AM, Simon Matter via CentOS wrote:
>> 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.html
>>
>>
>> Let'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.
> 
> Never, until the next change of course :-)
> 
> Wasn't it like that because RHEL maintains multiple .X levels while
CentOS
> always only represents the current, newest level. So omitting the .X level
> was intended to prevent such confusion we actually see.
That is indeed the reasoning .. you can not stabilize on CentOS-8.0 and
stay there after 8.1 RHEL source code is released .. because, 8.0 (at
that point) is missing security updates that were included in 8.1.  If
you add those security updates, now you are running the code that 8.1 is
based on.

So, the 8.0 and 8.1 and 8.2 releases are nothing more than a single
point in time of the overall CentOS Linux 8 release.  The CentOS mirrors
only test one version of CentOS-8 .. and that is the current version
with all the updates installed.

Red Hat does indeed provide to people extended support for point
releases for RHEL .. they provide security updates for 8.0 for a period
of time after 8.1 is released.  CentOS does not do that.  We never have.

-------------- 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/20200130/fa3dd255/attachment.sig>