Am 03.12.2015 um 22:28 schrieb Alice Wonder <al...@domblogger.net>:
> On 12/03/2015 12:53 PM, Leon Fauster wrote:
>> Am 03.12.2015 um 19:35 schrieb Greg Lindahl <lind...@pbm.com>:
>>> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 12:26:08PM +0100, Leon Fauster wrote:
>>>
>>> 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@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.
>
> Major.Minor.Patch seems pretty standard, I've wondered why it wasn't done
> that way myself.
This does not apply to distributions (compared to packaged
software components). There exits no RHEL 7.1.5 or similar ...
--
LF
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
