On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Josh Berkus <jber...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 06/19/2017 11:20 AM, Jason Brooks wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Josh Berkus <jber...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> Jason, KB, etc.: >>> >>> This is the beginning of last month's announcement: >>> >>> An updated version of [CentOS Atomic >>> Host](https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/Atomic/Download) >>> (tree version 7.20170428), is >>> now available ... >>> >>> And this is this month's: >>> >>> An updated version of CentOS Atomic Host (tree version 7.1705), is now >>> available[1]. CentOS Atomic Host is a lean operating system designed to >>> run ... >>> >>> See the problem here? How is a user supposed to keep track of upgrades? >> >> We did change the versioning, I should have mentioned it in the message. >> >> It's not inconsistent, though, in that both are date-based, the last >> indicates Apr 2017, this one indicates May 2017. We talked about this >> in our last SIG meeting -- the rest of centos revs monthly, with this >> same major-version.YYMM scheme, and we've switched to that scheme for >> CentOS Atomic. >> >> Our images have actually carried this 1705, 1704, 1703 number for >> quite a while now, and this should make it easier for users to match >> up images with the version of the tree they contain. > > OK. Mind writing a para on this for the blog post?
Will do > > -- > -- > Josh Berkus > Project Atomic > Red Hat OSAS
