* Helen South
One of my issues with major/minor is that we then have the pressure to conform to Major/Minor. The progression must be followed, but what if upstream have no major changes and nothing much is happening with the kernel?
What constitutes 'major'? Is it seen as partisan to mark a significant development in one desktop or another? Can one major follow another immediately if some major development occurs?
Per Andreas Jaeger post earlier this thread, *today*: Message-Id: <201103152107.55372.aj@novell.com> <quote> I don't think so, we're discussing each and every time when to go to 12.0 and find no solution for it. Instead we make our distribution worth since we don't feel it's good enough to be a new major release. But we do not have a major release like that anymore, all releases are equally major - or equally minor ;) - and therefore let's find an algorithmic way to define this. If you have another easy algorithm, I'd like to hear it even if voting has already started... </quote> Major/Minor/Release ##.0 is not a player, does not exist! There is no reason to discuss major/minor, only the issue numbering schema and dispelling the mith, major/minor. -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://counter.li.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org