[opensuse-project] Re: openSUSE versioning scheme (was Re: [opensuse-factory] Re: [opensuse-buildservice] Can we please get ARM builds for 11.3+1?)
On Tuesday 06 July 2010 15:41:43 Peter Nikolic wrote:
On Tuesday 06 Jul 2010 12:37:58 Jakub Rusinek wrote:
Dnia 06-07-2010 o 13:34:25 Stephan Kulow
napisał(a): Am Dienstag 06 Juli 2010 schrieb Jakub Rusinek:
Dnia 06-07-2010 o 11:12:13 Martin Schlander
napisał(a):
Mandag den 5. juli 2010 17:34:35 skrev Jakub Rusinek:
Ubuntu does their numbering job well.
In my experience noone intuitively understands the Ubuntu versioning scheme - it always needs to be explained.
But at least there _is_ a reasonably good explanation for it :-)
Well, nobody says openSUSE should follow their numbering guidelines ;) . Whether they prefer year written as two digits or not, it's their choice. I'd personally vote for eg. 2010.1/2010.2, where the year represents year of the release and number after the point represents number of release that year.
So - 2010.1 would be first release in 2010, 2010.2 would be second, 2011.1 would be first in 2011 etc.
Try to say "KDE 4.4.4 won't be ready for 2010.1, but it's in 2011.1" three times quickly.
Then it's your turn to work out another solution ;) .
After criticizing my invention, Ubuntu's way seems pretty resonable. Year.month.
What exactly is wrong with the current system IS this yet another change for the sake of change or does someone have a rock solid reason for changing what seems to work very well for Opensuse note We are NOT Ubuntu we are NOT Fedora we are NOT Debian .
My vote is we stay exactly as we are now and don't wreak a system that works just because someone fancies mucking things up for something to do / get their name mentioned .. +1, I still don't see what's wrong with the current scheme nor real benefits from a new scheme. M
There is a saying don't fix what ain't broken or dow yow fix what ay bosted
Pete
-- Powered by openSUSE 11.2 (x86_64) Kernel: 2.6.30-rc6-git3-4-default KDE: 4.2.86 (KDE 4.2.86 (KDE 4.3 >= 20090514)) "release 1" 14:36 up 3 days 16:20, 4 users, load average: 1.98, 1.84, 1.51
-- Michael Löffler, Product Management SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - Nürnberg - AG Nürnberg - HRB 16746 - GF: Markus Rex -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Michael Loeffler wrote:
On Tuesday 06 July 2010 15:41:43 Peter Nikolic wrote:
What exactly is wrong with the current system IS this yet another change for the sake of change or does someone have a rock solid reason for changing what seems to work very well for Opensuse note We are NOT Ubuntu we are NOT Fedora we are NOT Debian .
My vote is we stay exactly as we are now and don't wreak a system that works just because someone fancies mucking things up for something to do / get their name mentioned ..
+1, I still don't see what's wrong with the current scheme nor real benefits from a new scheme. M
+1. What would be nice would be to add some real meaning to the major.minor number. And to stick to it. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (24.0°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Tuesday 06 July 2010 15:54:21 Michael Loeffler wrote:
+1, I still don't see what's wrong with the current scheme nor real benefits from a new scheme.
See the page that vincent wrote, my pain points are * in the software world a .3 release has only minor changes, the major gets released for major updates. For us there's no difference. * I've seen to many confusion with SLE and openSUSE numbers Michael, just answer the following honestly: * What is the next release called: 11.4 or 12.0? Why? * Why did we call 11.0 11.0 and not 10.4? * When and why do we end the 11.x numbers and go to 12.0? Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, Program Manager openSUSE, aj@{novell.com,opensuse.org} Twitter: jaegerandi | Identica: jaegerandi SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Per Jessen
Michael Loeffler wrote:
On Tuesday 06 July 2010 15:41:43 Peter Nikolic wrote:
What exactly is wrong with the current system IS this yet another change for the sake of change or does someone have a rock solid reason for changing what seems to work very well for Opensuse note We are NOT Ubuntu we are NOT Fedora we are NOT Debian .
My vote is we stay exactly as we are now and don't wreak a system that works just because someone fancies mucking things up for something to do / get their name mentioned ..
+1, I still don't see what's wrong with the current scheme nor real benefits from a new scheme. M
+1. What would be nice would be to add some real meaning to the major.minor number. And to stick to it.
Ah..., so we could stick with 11.x until KDE 5 comes out! I really think that is bad idea, so I'm going to ignore the technology side of it. The only other driver I could think of is to bump to 12.0 when the new strategy comes out. (That's part of what's driving this discussion anyway.) Stick with 12.x for say 3 years, and then do a strategy revision and bump to 13.0. Repeat every 3 years or so. It has the benefit of putting strategy and strategy revision on people's minds. It also helps people realize when they are having strategy discussions that they should be looking years out, not just a release or two. As to the comment on the wiki that SLES numbers are too easily confused with openSUSE version numbers, I'm not sure that's an openSUSE issue per se. Who's impacted by the confusion. Greg -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Tuesday 06 July 2010 16:18:19 Greg Freemyer wrote:
As to the comment on the wiki that SLES numbers are too easily confused with openSUSE version numbers, I'm not sure that's an openSUSE issue per se. Who's impacted by the confusion.
It's one of my pain points when I see messages speaking about SUSE 11.1 - and asking back, it's about SLES 11 or SLES 11 SP1 ;-(. I've seen it too often. So, because of my pain points, I'd like to have a good versioning scheme. Currently we have *no scheme*: We use major.minor without any meaning besides marketing. major gets increased whenever somebody feels like it but there's no documented way of increasing it. There's nothing in 11.x that stays the same: Neither branding, base system, installation etc. NOTHING that cannot be touched between 11.x and 11.x+1. And that's completely different from expectations by software developers. Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, Program Manager openSUSE, aj@{novell.com,opensuse.org} Twitter: jaegerandi | Identica: jaegerandi SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
Greg Freemyer wrote:
As to the comment on the wiki that SLES numbers are too easily confused with openSUSE version numbers, I'm not sure that's an openSUSE issue per se. Who's impacted by the confusion.
mostly impacted are openSUSE forum question answerers who provide help for (say) SUSE 11.1 and later learn the question was about SLED 11 SP 1.. which technically may not be a problem (i do not know enough about SLED/S to know).. except, if they are using the Novell product they should (imo) be asking in the Novell, and not openSUSE, forum.. or, the oS helper may suspect the question is on SLES/D and need to ask to clarify.. DenverD -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Andreas Jaeger wrote:
Michael, just answer the following honestly: * What is the next release called: 11.4 or 12.0? Why? * Why did we call 11.0 11.0 and not 10.4? * When and why do we end the 11.x numbers and go to 12.0?
Yep, that is the real issue - there are no good answers to those questions. (AFAICT). -- Per Jessen, Zürich (24.6°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Andreas Jaeger wrote:
So, because of my pain points, I'd like to have a good versioning scheme. Currently we have *no scheme*: We use major.minor without any meaning besides marketing. major gets increased whenever somebody feels like it but there's no documented way of increasing it.
I know this perhaps just me being picky with the words, but we _do_ have a versioning scheme, and it's even well-defined - our problem is that we aren't using it. Personally and probably mostly because of habit, I favour the major.minor system, but I'm not sure it's really very well suited for a project like openSUSE whose core ingrediences come from other projects. A major.minor scheme makes little sense unless it comes with solid planning. This is the kind of release planning where we would know the rough outline+contents+timeline of 12.0 by the time 11.1 is released. Or something along those lines, I'm sure you get the idea. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (24.6°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Tuesday 06 July 2010 16:56:42 Per Jessen wrote:
Andreas Jaeger wrote:
So, because of my pain points, I'd like to have a good versioning scheme. Currently we have *no scheme*: We use major.minor without any meaning besides marketing. major gets increased whenever somebody feels like it but there's no documented way of increasing it.
I know this perhaps just me being picky with the words, but we _do_ have a versioning scheme, and it's even well-defined - our problem is that we aren't using it.
Personally and probably mostly because of habit, I favour the major.minor system, but I'm not sure it's really very well suited for a project like openSUSE whose core ingrediences come from other projects.
A major.minor scheme makes little sense unless it comes with solid planning. This is the kind of release planning where we would know the rough outline+contents+timeline of 12.0 by the time 11.1 is released. Or something along those lines, I'm sure you get the idea.
So, what you say is we follow with naming the major.minor theme but do not implement it as it's defined. In your opinion we should plan disruptive changes for 12.0 only but not in 12.1. so, that sounds to me like we agree completely that what we do does not fit the major.minor scheme we pretend to use. Either follow it - what seems to be your proposal - or abandon it - my proposal. Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, Program Manager openSUSE, aj@{novell.com,opensuse.org} Twitter: jaegerandi | Identica: jaegerandi SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
On Tuesday 06 July 2010 16:16:32 Andreas Jaeger wrote:
On Tuesday 06 July 2010 15:54:21 Michael Loeffler wrote:
+1, I still don't see what's wrong with the current scheme nor real benefits from a new scheme.
See the page that vincent wrote, my pain points are * in the software world a .3 release has only minor changes, the major gets released for major updates. For us there's no difference. * I've seen to many confusion with SLE and openSUSE numbers
Michael, just answer the following honestly: * What is the next release called: 11.4 or 12.0? Why? 11.4 because according to the current scheme 11.4 is after 11.3 * Why did we call 11.0 11.0 and not 10.4? for 10 and 11 the .0 version was always the one prior to a SUSE Linux Enterprise (SLE) release and .1 was the one SLE was based on. Why should we give up the relation to SLE? Isn't it a thing to be proud of? At least people telling me they are. As we deliver a huge amount of software for many areas it will be more then difficult to go to an .0 release because of any major change as it won't be easy to set the rule what a major change (major desktop version, major kernel, major or new application etc) is. * When and why do we end the 11.x numbers and go to 12.0? I'd propose to go to 12.0 prior to SUSE Linux Enterprise 12 and base SLE 12 on 12.1. In that case we probably would have a 11.5 or higher - don't know the schedule for SLE 12.
And we're just so honest let me add some argument from my side why I'm oppose to change the versioning scheme: - do we gain more contributors or users through a new versioning scheme ? - we had twice a me too approach by giving our releases names (lizards and philosophers) and this didn't turn out to be a success - I don't stick to the confusion argument because with software there is always confusion and because of the fact that you normally hear only from defects, complaints or confusion. The huge majority (I think way more then 90% in our case) you never hear from as they are okay with our product - the stability/quality argument I don't buy neither as we normally know after the release about stabitliy and quality when its used on a kind of endless number of machines - still the issue with current versioning and the benefits through a change are in my opinion weak - Assuming there is a real and harming effect of the current versioning I see way more things around our project to focus on to improve the project over all: - strategy - grow our community together (eg. ml vs forums) - get more contributors to openSUSE - lower the bar for people new to openSUSE - developer documentation - tools integration If we fill the project with life, activity, good stuff and tools we will succeed independent of any versioniong scheme. Have a lot of fun! M
Andreas
-- Michael Löffler, Product Management SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - Nürnberg - AG Nürnberg - HRB 16746 - GF: Markus Rex -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Andreas Jaeger wrote:
On Tuesday 06 July 2010 16:56:42 Per Jessen wrote:
Andreas Jaeger wrote:
So, because of my pain points, I'd like to have a good versioning scheme. Currently we have *no scheme*: We use major.minor without any meaning besides marketing. major gets increased whenever somebody feels like it but there's no documented way of increasing it.
I know this perhaps just me being picky with the words, but we _do_ have a versioning scheme, and it's even well-defined - our problem is that we aren't using it.
Personally and probably mostly because of habit, I favour the major.minor system, but I'm not sure it's really very well suited for a project like openSUSE whose core ingrediences come from other projects.
A major.minor scheme makes little sense unless it comes with solid planning. This is the kind of release planning where we would know the rough outline+contents+timeline of 12.0 by the time 11.1 is released. Or something along those lines, I'm sure you get the idea.
So, what you say is we follow with naming the major.minor theme but do not implement it as it's defined. In your opinion we should plan disruptive changes for 12.0 only but not in 12.1.
Yes, that is how I interpret a major.minor versioning scheme. With hindsight, perhaps we could have had the following disruptive/major changes for 12.0 - new syslog daemon, new cron, new KDE, new sysinit, new postfix. (just an example).
so, that sounds to me like we agree completely that what we do does not fit the major.minor scheme we pretend to use.
Either follow it - what seems to be your proposal - or abandon it - my proposal.
One of those two, yes. Either way, we have to stick to the scheme and whatever meaning we attach to it, otherwise it's worthless. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (25.2°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Martes, 6 de Julio de 2010 09:48:50 Per Jessen escribió:
Andreas Jaeger wrote:
Michael, just answer the following honestly: * What is the next release called: 11.4 or 12.0? Why?
The next release will be on March 2011 and it will be openSUSE 12.0 I can remember that from a Slide Presentation (What's New in openSUSE 11.2) for LinuxTag-2009 by Andreas Jaeger.
* Why did we call 11.0 11.0 and not 10.4?
Maybe because our opeSUSE releases and support life-cycle ends every 3 releases. I mean after 24 months openSUSE ends the older version support to keep alive the newer and the other two oldest (e.g: 11.3, 11.2 and 11.1 will end support for 11.0. It was the same for 11.2, 11.1 and 11.0 finished support for 10.3) Best regards, -- Ricardo Chung a.k.a. amonthoth openSUSE Ambassador for Panama http://en.opensuse.org/User:Amonthoth http://es.opensuse.org/Usuario:Amonthoth http://twitter.com/amon0thoth1 http://www.opensuse.org/en/ http://es.opensuse.org/Grupos_Locales_de_Usuarios -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Tuesday 06 July 2010 17:59:40 Ricardo Chung wrote:
On Martes, 6 de Julio de 2010 09:48:50 Per Jessen escribió:
Andreas Jaeger wrote:
Michael, just answer the following honestly: * What is the next release called: 11.4 or 12.0? Why?
The next release will be on March 2011 and it will be openSUSE 12.0 I can remember that from a Slide Presentation (What's New in openSUSE 11.2) for LinuxTag-2009 by Andreas Jaeger.
That was a proposal for the version number, nothing cast in stone ;)
* Why did we call 11.0 11.0 and not 10.4?
Maybe because our opeSUSE releases and support life-cycle ends every 3 releases. I mean after 24 months openSUSE ends the older version support to keep alive the newer and the other two oldest (e.g: 11.3, 11.2 and 11.1 will end support for 11.0. It was the same for 11.2, 11.1 and 11.0 finished support for 10.3)
I don't see how that fits together. And we're at 18 months now... Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, Program Manager openSUSE, aj@{novell.com,opensuse.org} Twitter: jaegerandi | Identica: jaegerandi SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
On Tuesday 06 July 2010 17:19:05 Michael Loeffler wrote:
On Tuesday 06 July 2010 16:16:32 Andreas Jaeger wrote:
On Tuesday 06 July 2010 15:54:21 Michael Loeffler wrote:
+1, I still don't see what's wrong with the current scheme nor real benefits from a new scheme.
See the page that vincent wrote, my pain points are * in the software world a .3 release has only minor changes, the major gets released for major updates. For us there's no difference. * I've seen to many confusion with SLE and openSUSE numbers
Michael, just answer the following honestly: * What is the next release called: 11.4 or 12.0? Why?
11.4 because according to the current scheme 11.4 is after 11.3
* Why did we call 11.0 11.0 and not 10.4?
for 10 and 11 the .0 version was always the one prior to a SUSE Linux Enterprise (SLE) release and .1 was the one SLE was based on. Why should we give up the relation to SLE? Isn't it a thing to be proud of? At least people telling me they are.
Which brings us to another point: Nobody else is aware of that! If you say this is the status quo and we go for it, it needs to be documented! Henne told Vincent: We always go to .3 and then increase major. I only remember that discussion as: Let's increase it in time for SLE11 - we even discussed basing SLE 11 on openSUSE 11.0 ;)
As we deliver a huge amount of software for many areas it will be more then difficult to go to an .0 release because of any major change as it won't be easy to set the rule what a major change (major desktop version, major kernel, major or new application etc) is.
Exactly, this major/minor renaming is bad. Btw. if we go to the SLE numbering, I propose to change it so that SLE is based on the *last* minor release - so, once SLE is out, we increase the major. That gives an even stronger signal: SLE12 is the ultimate continuation of openSUSE 12 ;) Otherwise there's too much going back and forth when to release SLE and openSUSE and when to increase the version number - just imagine SLE suddenly decides to get released earlier/later than planned.
* When and why do we end the 11.x numbers and go to 12.0?
I'd propose to go to 12.0 prior to SUSE Linux Enterprise 12 and base SLE 12 on 12.1. In that case we probably would have a 11.5 or higher - don't know the schedule for SLE 12.
And I'd like to get that unknown release date out of the equation.
And we're just so honest let me add some argument from my side why I'm oppose to change the versioning scheme: - do we gain more contributors or users through a new versioning scheme
Not gain - but avoid confusion and help planning. I'm glad that we're now at a strict 8 month release cycle - one headache less. I'd like to see a similar predictable version number. Neither of us can say with authority today what's the name of even the next two releases is and that's bad! Let's get the same predictability into it like the 8 month release cycle!
? - we had twice a me too approach by giving our releases names (lizards and philosophers) and this didn't turn out to be a success
Part of that was that we always spoke about version numbers.
- I don't stick to the confusion argument because with software there is always confusion and because of the fact that you normally hear only from defects, complaints or confusion. The huge majority (I think way more then 90% in our case) you never hear from as they are okay with our product - the stability/quality argument I don't buy neither as we normally know after the release about stabitliy and quality when its used on a kind of endless number of machines - still the issue with current versioning and the benefits through a change are in my opinion weak
Michl, look at the discussion going on here, e.g. what Per is saying - software developers interpret the version numbers different than the openSUSE distribution does. There is confusion!
- Assuming there is a real and harming effect of the current versioning I see way more things around our project to focus on to improve the project over all: - strategy - grow our community together (eg. ml vs forums)
I consider a constructive discussion where we learn how to discuss and work together community building as well ;)
- get more contributors to openSUSE - lower the bar for people new to openSUSE - developer documentation - tools integration
If we fill the project with life, activity, good stuff and tools we will succeed independent of any versioniong scheme.
Yes, we have to focus - but that also means we have to define some things properly and the discussion here has shown that there's no clarity today which allows us to focus. Let me summarize what my opinion is: * A version scheme needs to be documented to avoid these kind of discussions - we failed so far in this arena * A version number scheme needs to be predictable - we fail with your proposal basing SLE12 on openSUSE 12.1. My counterproposal to increase directly after SLES12 to 13.0 is better here... * I would prefer to have a superior version scheme but I haven't seen it brought forward. If some great idea comes up, let's do it. But I agree with let's not change it just to change it ;) One proposal for change that I liked was to wait until 2012 and then use a year.release or year.month scheme. That would give us for 2012 and 2013: 12.1, 13.1, 13.2 (preferred IMO) - or 12.7, 13.3, 13.11. Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, Program Manager openSUSE, aj@{novell.com,opensuse.org} Twitter: jaegerandi | Identica: jaegerandi SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Andreas Jaeger
On Tuesday 06 July 2010 17:19:05 Michael Loeffler wrote: <snip>
* Why did we call 11.0 11.0 and not 10.4?
for 10 and 11 the .0 version was always the one prior to a SUSE Linux Enterprise (SLE) release and .1 was the one SLE was based on. Why should we give up the relation to SLE? Isn't it a thing to be proud of? At least people telling me they are.
Which brings us to another point: Nobody else is aware of that! If you say this is the status quo and we go for it, it needs to be documented! Henne told Vincent: We always go to .3 and then increase major.
I only remember that discussion as: Let's increase it in time for SLE11 - we even discussed basing SLE 11 on openSUSE 11.0 ;)
As we deliver a huge amount of software for many areas it will be more then difficult to go to an .0 release because of any major change as it won't be easy to set the rule what a major change (major desktop version, major kernel, major or new application etc) is.
Exactly, this major/minor renaming is bad.
Btw. if we go to the SLE numbering, I propose to change it so that SLE is based on the *last* minor release - so, once SLE is out, we increase the major. That gives an even stronger signal: SLE12 is the ultimate continuation of openSUSE 12 ;)
Conceptually, that is by far the best proposal I've heard. SLE 12 is not due for a few years aiui, so there is time to get openSUSE to the 12.x series for a couple releases at a minimum. But it assumes that openSUSE is indeed a feeder to the next SLE release. If all including Novell agree that it serves that purpose, then I really like this approach. Greg -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Tuesday 06 July 2010 21:35:12 Greg Freemyer wrote:
[...] If all including Novell agree that it serves that purpose, then I really like this approach.
Yes, Novell likes to see that openSUSE is a kind of base for SLE. It might happen that the openSUSE project makes some decisions that the SLED and SLES folks would do differently and therefore cannot use openSUSE as a perfect base but first need to do some changes - but that would still be a base. On the other hand, this feeding into SLE is a good goal but it's not the only goal. openSUSE is a great distro on its own - and therefore it can be taken as basis for SLE ;) Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, Program Manager openSUSE, aj@{novell.com,opensuse.org} Twitter: jaegerandi | Identica: jaegerandi SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
Andreas Jaeger wrote:
* Why did we call 11.0 11.0 and not 10.4?
for 10 and 11 the .0 version was always the one prior to a SUSE Linux Enterprise (SLE) release and .1 was the one SLE was based on. Why should we give up the relation to SLE? Isn't it a thing to be proud of? At least people telling me they are.
Which brings us to another point: Nobody else is aware of that!
Exactly! Before I add a few comments, I'd like to say that I'm not really too concerned with the openSUSE numbering scheme. Yes, I would like it to be meaningful, and yes, I do use it as I have a number of servers running everything from 7.1 to 11.2. (my company is conservative, when it ain't borken ...)
As we deliver a huge amount of software for many areas it will be more then difficult to go to an .0 release because of any major change as it won't be easy to set the rule what a major change (major desktop version, major kernel, major or new application etc) is.
Exactly, this major/minor renaming is bad.
I agree that working to a strict major/minor scheme is difficult, but I don't quite understand this comment about renaming, Andreas? Wrt Michaels comment, I think it might be possible to define reasonable major number thresholds. We (and presumably SLE product management) would just have to accept that major releases won't happen very often.
Btw. if we go to the SLE numbering, I propose to change it so that SLE is based on the *last* minor release - so, once SLE is out, we increase the major.
Bit of a catch-22 - we won't know what the last minor is until SLE is out, but that is already based on the last. If we're keeping the major.minor versioning, I don't think such a strong coupling is a good idea, tbh. The change of major# would be as meaningless as it is today. I am in no way intimately familiar with the SLE product cycle etc., but is it important to have such a strong coupling between openSUSE and SLE?
Otherwise there's too much going back and forth when to release SLE and openSUSE and when to increase the version number - just imagine SLE suddenly decides to get released earlier/later than planned.
Okay, here's more coupling that we (us out here in the wild) are unaware of.
And we're just so honest let me add some argument from my side why I'm oppose to change the versioning scheme: - do we gain more contributors or users through a new versioning scheme
Not gain - but avoid confusion and help planning.
I would also oppose a change of the scheme, but I would welcome a stricter adherence to it.
I'm glad that we're now at a strict 8 month release cycle - one headache less. I'd like to see a similar predictable version number.
Unless we just do sequential numbering, anything else implies planning. If we're not expecting to plan outline/contents/changes any better than we do today, a plain sequential numbering would be best. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (21.0°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Andreas Jaeger wrote:
Let me summarize what my opinion is: * A version scheme needs to be documented to avoid these kind of discussions - we failed so far in this arena * A version number scheme needs to be predictable - we fail with your proposal basing SLE12 on openSUSE 12.1. My counterproposal to increase directly after SLES12 to 13.0 is better here... * I would prefer to have a superior version scheme but I haven't seen it brought forward. If some great idea comes up, let's do it. But I agree with let's not change it just to change it ;)
Generally (and non-marketing-related) speaking, version numbers are used to distinguish products, typically wrt features and inter-operatibility. Dot-releases are expected to inter-operate without a hitch, have less bugs than minorversion-1, and overall be "a little better"(R) that minorversion-1. No new or earth-shattering features are expected. For people with only a couple of systems at home, the version number is of little use (apart from marketing), for people with multiple systems in production, version numbering, both for openSUSE, mysql and Apache is important. When you're running in production, _any_ change is a risk, so upgrading is not done just because a new openSUSE release is available. Instead, changes are planned, customers notified, fallback plans made etc., and the upgrade is done slowly (if necessary or desired) on a weekend, most often Saturday night :-( Regarding Andreas' proposal wrt documentation and predictability, those are certainly fine qualities, but the one we have been sorely missing is adherence. If we are to continue with major.minor (my favourite, but mostly out of habit), we just have define what makes up a) a major release and b) a minor ditto. I'll be happy to write a draft proposal. If we chose not to use a major.minor scheme (for instance because we cannot coordinate changes in a suitable way), I propose the 11.3++ release becomes openSUSE 12.0, the following 12.1, then 12.2 etc. With a proviso that the major number 12 cannot change without 1) significant base system changes and 2) board approval. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (19.9°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Tuesday 2010-07-06 15:54, Michael Loeffler wrote:
What exactly is wrong with the current system IS this yet another change for the sake of change or does someone have a rock solid reason for changing what seems to work very well for Opensuse note We are NOT Ubuntu we are NOT Fedora we are NOT Debian .
My vote is we stay exactly as we are now and don't wreak a system that works just because someone fancies mucking things up for something to do / get their name mentioned ..
+1, I still don't see what's wrong with the current scheme nor real benefits from a new scheme.
The current scheme is that we -seemingly always- start with a .0 after a .3. (I added that to vuntz's wiki page) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Tue, 6 Jul 2010, Per Jessen wrote:
Wrt Michaels comment, I think it might be possible to define reasonable major number thresholds. We (and presumably SLE product management) would just have to accept that major releases won't happen very often.
From a SUSE Linux Enterprise perspective we are looking at major release cycles of three or more years. And, yes, product management is fine with that. ;-)
Bit of a catch-22 - we won't know what the last minor is until SLE is out, but that is already based on the last.
That is something we could untangle by providing more insights into our plans for SUSE Linux Enterprise up front. I guess this is something I'd be able to take care of.
I am in no way intimately familiar with the SLE product cycle etc., but is it important to have such a strong coupling between openSUSE and SLE?
I am quite intimately familiar with both SUSE Linux Enterprise and
openSUSE and it's been nice in the past, while I do not consider it
truely important going forward.
Note: none of the above is a request to keep the status quo, nor is
it a request for change. In my mind this is something for openSUSE
to decide independently and I will be glad to provide whatever data
may be needed for that.
Gerald
--
Dr. Gerald Pfeifer
(Top posting because my response isn't to any specific post in this thread but to the overall thread itself.) Now keep in mind that I'm putting on my marketing cap for the most part here. (You've been warned! :-) ) I sat down tonight to read through this thread in its entirety hoping to finally get a better understanding of what the versions mean to us. And in the end, after many postings, I find the answer just as elusive as when I started reading this thread.
From a marketing perspective, I'm not really expecting to see huge numbers for the upcoming 11.3 release. I'm not expecting to see huge writeups out there about 11.3. I'm not expecting to hear a lot of buzz out there about 11.3. For one simple reason. The dot three sounds simply like a minor update to the family of openSUSE 11 product line.
You and I both know that really isn't the case. Each release we put out there is an improvement, an enhancement, and yes even a patch to previous versions. There can be many new things in there, and there can be some old things that *work better* in there (we hope!). What I had hoped to see in this thread was a better understanding of what each "set of releases" means. What is the goal and purpose of each one? What does 11 and its successors (.x) mean? Is the next major version (12) truly a major version from 11? Or is it a continuation of the wonderful enhancements and additions we've made from 11.3? This is unclear to me. And its unclear to journalists too. And we have to spend extra time reaching out to journalists who gave us the pass-over thinking its not big news, and say to them... "No! 11.3 isn't just a patch update. It's really cool and new! You gotta check it out!" So, let's take a step back from talking about versioning schemes a bit and get to the real heart of the matter here. Defining clearly what each release is supposed to mean and if its a set of releases (e.g. 11.0, 11.1, 11.2, 11.3) then explain what our overall goals were for that particular line and what our new goals are for 12.0 and its successors. And by doing this, by becoming clearer what our long-term goals for a release (or release set) we can enable our community to talk about it earlier on to the world. Right now, most buzz about a release happens right around release time. But if we can generate buzz very early on, we can attract more testers, we can attract more contributors, we can attract more developers, you get the drift here. And doesn't having more testers early on in the release development mean better things for us at release time? We need to define our releases and thus our versioning schemes early-on so our discussions become more proactive than reactive. Bryen M Yunashko openSUSE Board Member openSUSE Marketing Team lead On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 00:00 +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jul 2010, Per Jessen wrote:
Wrt Michaels comment, I think it might be possible to define reasonable major number thresholds. We (and presumably SLE product management) would just have to accept that major releases won't happen very often.
From a SUSE Linux Enterprise perspective we are looking at major release cycles of three or more years. And, yes, product management is fine with that. ;-)
Bit of a catch-22 - we won't know what the last minor is until SLE is out, but that is already based on the last.
That is something we could untangle by providing more insights into our plans for SUSE Linux Enterprise up front. I guess this is something I'd be able to take care of.
I am in no way intimately familiar with the SLE product cycle etc., but is it important to have such a strong coupling between openSUSE and SLE?
I am quite intimately familiar with both SUSE Linux Enterprise and openSUSE and it's been nice in the past, while I do not consider it truely important going forward.
Note: none of the above is a request to keep the status quo, nor is it a request for change. In my mind this is something for openSUSE to decide independently and I will be glad to provide whatever data may be needed for that.
Gerald -- Dr. Gerald Pfeifer
Director Product Management, SUSE Linux Enterprise, openSUSE, Appliances
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Le 07/07/2010 00:00, Gerald Pfeifer a écrit :
That is something we could untangle by providing more insights into our plans for SUSE Linux Enterprise up front. I guess this is something I'd be able to take care of.
having more data on how SLE is related to openSUSE is definitively a good thing, what ever numbering sheme we use :-) Transparency is a key jdd -- http://www.dodin.net http://www.facebook.com/pages/I-support-the-Linux-Documentation-Project/3720... http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-fan-page-of-Claire-Dodin/106485119372062?v... -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Bryen M. Yunashko wrote:
From a marketing perspective, I'm not really expecting to see huge numbers for the upcoming 11.3 release. I'm not expecting to see huge writeups out there about 11.3. I'm not expecting to hear a lot of buzz out there about 11.3. For one simple reason. The dot three sounds simply like a minor update to the family of openSUSE 11 product line.
Which is what it ought to be if our versioning had any meaning.
You and I both know that really isn't the case. Each release we put out there is an improvement, an enhancement, and yes even a patch to previous versions. There can be many new things in there, and there can be some old things that *work better* in there (we hope!).
Improvements, enhancements and patches all make for minor releases. "Many new things" combined could possibly make for a major release, but in my opinion only if they affect the base system.
So, let's take a step back from talking about versioning schemes a bit and get to the real heart of the matter here. Defining clearly what each release is supposed to mean and if its a set of releases (e.g. 11.0, 11.1, 11.2, 11.3) then explain what our overall goals were for that particular line and what our new goals are for 12.0 and its successors.
This is exactly the kind of planning I have been talking about. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (17.8°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Andreas Jaeger wrote:
[...] One proposal for change that I liked was to wait until 2012 and then use a year.release or year.month scheme. That would give us for 2012 and 2013: 12.1, 13.1, 13.2 (preferred IMO) - or 12.7, 13.3, 13.11.
FWIW I like the former as it looks similar to current versions and stays compatible with rpm macros. To avoid a rather unusual 11.5 end of 2011 a 12.0 as final irregular number would also still fit in. cu Ludwig -- (o_ Ludwig Nussel //\ V_/_ http://www.suse.de/ SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Per Jessen wrote:
Bryen M. Yunashko wrote:
From a marketing perspective, I'm not really expecting to see huge numbers for the upcoming 11.3 release. I'm not expecting to see huge writeups out there about 11.3. I'm not expecting to hear a lot of buzz out there about 11.3. For one simple reason. The dot three sounds simply like a minor update to the family of openSUSE 11 product line.
Which is what it ought to be if our versioning had any meaning.
You and I both know that really isn't the case. Each release we put out there is an improvement, an enhancement, and yes even a patch to previous versions. There can be many new things in there, and there can be some old things that *work better* in there (we hope!).
Improvements, enhancements and patches all make for minor releases. "Many new things" combined could possibly make for a major release, but in my opinion only if they affect the base system.
who gets to decide what "base system" and how much affect is seen, felt, heard, smelt or tasted......or just read about? i dare say most of the mag/blog writers and buzz makers Bryen spoke of are *not* gonna count the absences of quirks, install oddities, user setbacks or 'little problems' (from triumphant bug squashing) as a great thing to trumpet across the net-scape.. nor will they breath heavy when learning 12.0 has the latest stable kernel, KDE, Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice, Apache, blah blah blah.....why, because their targeted buzz producing readers (giving them the eyeball count they track to put bread on their table) are looking for the next round of exciting bling.. after all, wobbly windows and spinning cubes is SO Yesterday. want buzz? Pimp the Bling and call it openSUSE 2011 Ultimate Professional Blitzoid Plus the excited buzz producers are, after all, influenced by more than just _this_ community. If you want buzz you have to go to the buzzers. ;-) personally, i'd rather read: "Ho hum! Another in a long string of rock solid, stable, dependable, reliable, predictable, just-works, fits most everyones computing needs (from embedded hand held wireless to back office server and Cray smasher) distro was released as simply named "openSUSE 11.3" by their Community Wizards today. In other news, the pimpled face, bubble gum crowd flocking to *buntu really likes their new retro green fonts on solid black backgrounds. WAY cool! AND, they can triple-click to make the fonts shake and shimmer!!" DenverD in case you missed it, my point: *What _do_ we want to produce today? *Tomorrow? imHo: answer those questions and THEN talk about strategy, version names, etc etc etc.. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
DenverD wrote:
Per Jessen wrote:
Bryen M. Yunashko wrote:
You and I both know that really isn't the case. Each release we put out there is an improvement, an enhancement, and yes even a patch to previous versions. There can be many new things in there, and there can be some old things that *work better* in there (we hope!).
Improvements, enhancements and patches all make for minor releases. "Many new things" combined could possibly make for a major release, but in my opinion only if they affect the base system.
who gets to decide what "base system" and how much affect is seen, felt, heard, smelt or tasted......or just read about?
Well, I know what I think the base system encompasses. Overall, I don't think it'll be too difficult to look at a package and say "base or not?". -- Per Jessen, Zürich (19.7°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On 7/7/10 12:00 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jul 2010, Per Jessen wrote:
Wrt Michaels comment, I think it might be possible to define reasonable major number thresholds. We (and presumably SLE product management) would just have to accept that major releases won't happen very often.
From a SUSE Linux Enterprise perspective we are looking at major release cycles of three or more years. And, yes, product management is fine with that. ;-)
Bit of a catch-22 - we won't know what the last minor is until SLE is out, but that is already based on the last.
That is something we could untangle by providing more insights into our plans for SUSE Linux Enterprise up front. I guess this is something I'd be able to take care of.
Please do. While some openSUSE contributors may not have any interest at all in SLE, there are some of us who definitely are interested.
I am in no way intimately familiar with the SLE product cycle etc., but is it important to have such a strong coupling between openSUSE and SLE?
In my experience, it is a plus - and it helps both the open source project and the enterprise side.
I am quite intimately familiar with both SUSE Linux Enterprise and openSUSE and it's been nice in the past, while I do not consider it truely important going forward.
I have to politely disagree there. For some of my prior clients this was a important feature. They could evaluate many things prior to upgrading/adding subscriptions for SLE* I doubt they would tell you differently today.
Note: none of the above is a request to keep the status quo, nor is it a request for change. In my mind this is something for openSUSE to decide independently and I will be glad to provide whatever data may be needed for that.
Gerald
This is not of huge importance in any case IMHO. There are other more important tasks to tackle. Peter -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Per Jessen wrote:
DenverD wrote:
Per Jessen wrote:
Bryen M. Yunashko wrote:
You and I both know that really isn't the case. Each release we put out there is an improvement, an enhancement, and yes even a patch to previous versions. There can be many new things in there, and there can be some old things that *work better* in there (we hope!). Improvements, enhancements and patches all make for minor releases. "Many new things" combined could possibly make for a major release, but in my opinion only if they affect the base system. who gets to decide what "base system" and how much affect is seen, felt, heard, smelt or tasted......or just read about?
Well, I know what I think the base system encompasses. Overall, I don't think it'll be too difficult to look at a package and say "base or not?".
understand, but i *guess* 'base' might be defined somewhat differently depending on the machine owner and his/her needs...like the base system interesting to a SysAdmin at (say) Rackspace is probably different from the base system attracting a Hollywood digital effects artist and both of those different from a nettop user, or your average Linux kernel hacker... etc.. DenverD -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
DenverD wrote:
Per Jessen wrote:
DenverD wrote:
who gets to decide what "base system" and how much affect is seen, felt, heard, smelt or tasted......or just read about?
Well, I know what I think the base system encompasses. Overall, I don't think it'll be too difficult to look at a package and say "base or not?".
understand, but i *guess* 'base' might be defined somewhat differently depending on the machine owner and his/her needs...like the base system interesting to a SysAdmin at (say) Rackspace is probably different from the base system attracting a Hollywood digital effects artist and both of those different from a nettop user, or your average Linux kernel hacker... etc..
Whatever applications those people need, they would not be part of the base, imo. Example base components I can think of: syslog, sysinit, cron, zypper, apparmor, mail, X, KDE, shells, probably quite a few more. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (22.4°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Peter Linnell wrote:
I am quite intimately familiar with both SUSE Linux Enterprise and openSUSE and it's been nice in the past, while I do not consider it truely important going forward.
I have to politely disagree there. For some of my prior clients this was a important feature. They could evaluate many things prior to upgrading/adding subscriptions for SLE* I doubt they would tell you differently today.
If I am not mistaken, SLE also comes with a 30-day evaluation period? -- Per Jessen, Zürich (24.0°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 14:21:02 +0200
Per Jessen
Peter Linnell wrote:
I am quite intimately familiar with both SUSE Linux Enterprise and openSUSE and it's been nice in the past, while I do not consider it truely important going forward.
I have to politely disagree there. For some of my prior clients this was a important feature. They could evaluate many things prior to upgrading/adding subscriptions for SLE* I doubt they would tell you differently today.
If I am not mistaken, SLE also comes with a 30-day evaluation period?
60 days ;) -- Cheers Malcolm °¿° (Linux Counter #276890) SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop 11 (x86_64) Kernel 2.6.32.13-0.4-default up 1 day 13:06, 2 users, load average: 0.01, 0.02, 0.00 GPU GeForce 8600 GTS Silent - Driver Version: 256.35 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Am Wednesday 07 July 2010 14:59:54 schrieb Malcolm:
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 14:21:02 +0200
Per Jessen
wrote: Peter Linnell wrote:
I am quite intimately familiar with both SUSE Linux Enterprise and openSUSE and it's been nice in the past, while I do not consider it truely important going forward.
I have to politely disagree there. For some of my prior clients this was a important feature. They could evaluate many things prior to upgrading/adding subscriptions for SLE* I doubt they would tell you differently today.
If I am not mistaken, SLE also comes with a 30-day evaluation period?
60 days ;)
This is only true for having access to patches and updates. If you do not want to use patches, you can run SLE as long as you like (no time-bombed version). And some companies really do run without patching ... Regards, Peter -- Training, Projekte, Beratung rund um Open Source Software Peter Albrecht Tel: +49-(0)-89-89040475 Ulmenstraße 7 Mob: +49-(0)-173-3528664 85609 Aschheim https://www.xing.com/profile/Peter_Albrecht3 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Am Mittwoch 07 Juli 2010 schrieb Bryen M. Yunashko:
numbers for the upcoming 11.3 release. I'm not expecting to see huge writeups out there about 11.3. I'm not expecting to hear a lot of buzz out there about 11.3. For one simple reason. The dot three sounds simply like a minor update to the family of openSUSE 11 product line.
Hi, I can't stop thinking about this argument about minor version updates. What I wonder: did you see less reviews about Mac OS X updates after 10.0? I actually can't see any decline - and they seem still to sell quite a lot of new computers even though it's just a minor update. So I'm all for staying with 11.X till we switch to 12.MONTH 2012. Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Monday 12 July 2010 11:05:16 Stephan Kulow wrote:
Am Mittwoch 07 Juli 2010 schrieb Bryen M. Yunashko:
numbers for the upcoming 11.3 release. I'm not expecting to see huge writeups out there about 11.3. I'm not expecting to hear a lot of buzz out there about 11.3. For one simple reason. The dot three sounds simply like a minor update to the family of openSUSE 11 product line.
Hi,
I can't stop thinking about this argument about minor version updates. What I wonder: did you see less reviews about Mac OS X updates after 10.0? I actually can't see any decline - and they seem still to sell quite a lot of new computers even though it's just a minor update.
So I'm all for staying with 11.X till we switch to 12.MONTH 2012.
IMO we should decide quickly at least on how to name the next version to avoid confusion. How do we want to make a decision? Coolo and the board together throwing the dice ? ;) Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, Program Manager openSUSE, aj@{novell.com,opensuse.org} Twitter: jaegerandi | Identica: jaegerandi SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
Mandag den 12. juli 2010 11:33:15 skrev Andreas Jaeger:
On Monday 12 July 2010 11:05:16 Stephan Kulow wrote:
Am Mittwoch 07 Juli 2010 schrieb Bryen M. Yunashko:
numbers for the upcoming 11.3 release. I'm not expecting to see huge writeups out there about 11.3. I'm not expecting to hear a lot of buzz out there about 11.3. For one simple reason. The dot three sounds simply like a minor update to the family of openSUSE 11 product line.
Hi,
I can't stop thinking about this argument about minor version updates. What I wonder: did you see less reviews about Mac OS X updates after 10.0? I actually can't see any decline - and they seem still to sell quite a lot of new computers even though it's just a minor update.
So I'm all for staying with 11.X till we switch to 12.MONTH 2012.
IMO we should decide quickly at least on how to name the next version to avoid confusion.
I parse coolo's mail as suggesting: 11.3+1 == 11.4 11.3+2 == 11.5 11.3+3 == 12.07 (july 2012) Personally I'd hate to copy the Ubuntu scheme though. We must be able to come up with something better and more intuitive. At least write the year in full then: 2011.03, 2011.11, 2012.07. Or maybe 11 Spring , 11 Autumn, 12 Summer.. but of course that would be a bit too "northern hemisphere-centric". 2011.0, 2011.1, 2012.0 Argh, it's too hot to think straight...
How do we want to make a decision? Coolo and the board together throwing the dice ? ;)
Something like that. Please, no more votes :-) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Am Montag 12 Juli 2010 schrieb Martin Schlander:
Mandag den 12. juli 2010 11:33:15 skrev Andreas Jaeger:
On Monday 12 July 2010 11:05:16 Stephan Kulow wrote:
Am Mittwoch 07 Juli 2010 schrieb Bryen M. Yunashko:
numbers for the upcoming 11.3 release. I'm not expecting to see huge writeups out there about 11.3. I'm not expecting to hear a lot of buzz out there about 11.3. For one simple reason. The dot three sounds simply like a minor update to the family of openSUSE 11 product line.
Hi,
I can't stop thinking about this argument about minor version updates. What I wonder: did you see less reviews about Mac OS X updates after 10.0? I actually can't see any decline - and they seem still to sell quite a lot of new computers even though it's just a minor update.
So I'm all for staying with 11.X till we switch to 12.MONTH 2012.
IMO we should decide quickly at least on how to name the next version to avoid confusion.
I parse coolo's mail as suggesting:
11.3+1 == 11.4 11.3+2 == 11.5 11.3+3 == 12.07 (july 2012)
Personally I'd hate to copy the Ubuntu scheme though. We must be able to come up with something better and more intuitive.
At least write the year in full then: 2011.03, 2011.11, 2012.07.
Or maybe 11 Spring , 11 Autumn, 12 Summer.. but of course that would be a bit too "northern hemisphere-centric".
2011.0, 2011.1, 2012.0
Again: your proposed name schema needs to pass this test: Try to say "KDE 4.4.4 won't be ready for 2011.11, but it's in 2012.07" three times quickly. Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Mandag den 12. juli 2010 13:56:24 skrev Stephan Kulow:
Am Montag 12 Juli 2010 schrieb Martin Schlander:
Mandag den 12. juli 2010 11:33:15 skrev Andreas Jaeger:
On Monday 12 July 2010 11:05:16 Stephan Kulow wrote: I parse coolo's mail as suggesting:
11.3+1 == 11.4 11.3+2 == 11.5 11.3+3 == 12.07 (july 2012)
Personally I'd hate to copy the Ubuntu scheme though. We must be able to come up with something better and more intuitive.
At least write the year in full then: 2011.03, 2011.11, 2012.07.
Or maybe 11 Spring , 11 Autumn, 12 Summer.. but of course that would be a bit too "northern hemisphere-centric".
2011.0, 2011.1, 2012.0
Again: your proposed name schema needs to pass this test:
Try to say "KDE 4.4.4 won't be ready for 2011.11, but it's in 2012.07" three times quickly.
Hmm, I use a different versioning scheme test :-) * Must be 100% self-explanatory * Must not be possible to install a very old version thinking it's recent * Must not smell of Ubuntu -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Le lundi 12 juillet 2010, à 14:05 +0200, Martin Schlander a écrit :
* Must not smell of Ubuntu
Why? Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Mandag den 12. juli 2010 14:07:56 skrev Vincent Untz:
Le lundi 12 juillet 2010, à 14:05 +0200, Martin Schlander a écrit :
* Must not smell of Ubuntu
Why?
Apart from the Ubuntu versioning scheme not meeting the first two criteria of my test, copying Ubuntu would also make openSUSE the laugh of the town. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On 07/12/2010 02:05 PM, Martin Schlander wrote:
Hmm, I use a different versioning scheme test :-)
* Must be 100% self-explanatory * Must not be possible to install a very old version thinking it's recent * Must not smell of Ubuntu
Does openSUSE 11.2, 11.3, 12, 13, 14, 15 meet this criteria? Or it smells of Fedora? :-) -- Best Regards / S pozdravom, Pavol RUSNAK SUSE LINUX, s.r.o openSUSE Boosters Team Lihovarska 1060/12 PGP 0xA6917144 19000 Praha 9 prusnak[at]opensuse.org Czech Republic -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Le lundi 12 juillet 2010, à 14:16 +0200, Martin Schlander a écrit :
Mandag den 12. juli 2010 14:07:56 skrev Vincent Untz:
Le lundi 12 juillet 2010, à 14:05 +0200, Martin Schlander a écrit :
* Must not smell of Ubuntu
Why?
Apart from the Ubuntu versioning scheme not meeting the first two criteria of my test,
I can understand why it could fail the "100% self-explanatory" one (that's debatable, imho), but the second one is met.
copying Ubuntu would also make openSUSE the laugh of the town.
And why? My impression (and I have no idea if it's right -- on the contrary, I'd be happy to be proven wrong) is that you're saying this because you don't like Ubuntu in some way. Btw, I'm not saying we should adopt the Ubuntu scheme -- I still have no strong opinion on what's best. Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 8:28 AM, Vincent Untz
Le lundi 12 juillet 2010, à 14:16 +0200, Martin Schlander a écrit :
Mandag den 12. juli 2010 14:07:56 skrev Vincent Untz:
Le lundi 12 juillet 2010, à 14:05 +0200, Martin Schlander a écrit :
* Must not smell of Ubuntu
Why?
Apart from the Ubuntu versioning scheme not meeting the first two criteria of my test,
I can understand why it could fail the "100% self-explanatory" one (that's debatable, imho), but the second one is met.
copying Ubuntu would also make openSUSE the laugh of the town.
And why? My impression (and I have no idea if it's right -- on the contrary, I'd be happy to be proven wrong) is that you're saying this because you don't like Ubuntu in some way.
Btw, I'm not saying we should adopt the Ubuntu scheme -- I still have no strong opinion on what's best.
Vincent
-- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Why change? Even since the days of S.u.S.E it always been x.0, x.1, x.2, x.3 and I think a couple times x.4. We shouldn't change to any other distro naming ways. We are openSUSE, more and more lately I think we are trying to hard to mirror *buntu. Come on, leave it alone. I think what is place works, as a sys admin, I think we should follow the rule that if it ain't broke don't fix it. -- ----------------------------------------- Discover it! Enjoy it! Share it! openSUSE Linux. ----------------------------------------- openSUSE -- en.opensuse.org/User:Terrorpup openSUSE Ambassador/openSUSE Member skype,twiiter,identica,friendfeed -- terrorpup freenode(irc) --terrorpup/lupinstein Have you tried SUSE Studio? Need to create a Live CD, an app you want to package and distribute , or create your own linux distro. Give SUSE Studio a try. www.susestudio.com. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On 07/06/2010 09:20 PM, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
Michael, just answer the following honestly: * What is the next release called: 11.4 or 12.0? Why?
11.4 because according to the current scheme 11.4 is after 11.3
* Why did we call 11.0 11.0 and not 10.4?
for 10 and 11 the .0 version was always the one prior to a SUSE Linux Enterprise (SLE) release and .1 was the one SLE was based on. Why should we give up the relation to SLE? Isn't it a thing to be proud of? At least people telling me they are.
Which brings us to another point: Nobody else is aware of that! If you say this is the status quo and we go for it, it needs to be documented! Henne told Vincent: We always go to .3 and then increase major.
+10^10 This is something that really needs to be documented! -- Best Regards / S pozdravom, Pavol RUSNAK SUSE LINUX, s.r.o openSUSE Boosters Team Lihovarska 1060/12 PGP 0xA6917144 19000 Praha 9 prusnak[at]opensuse.org Czech Republic -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Mandag den 12. juli 2010 14:33:04 skrev Chuck Payne:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 8:28 AM, Vincent Untz
wrote: Le lundi 12 juillet 2010, à 14:16 +0200, Martin Schlander a écrit :
Mandag den 12. juli 2010 14:07:56 skrev Vincent Untz:
Le lundi 12 juillet 2010, à 14:05 +0200, Martin Schlander a écrit :
* Must not smell of Ubuntu
Why?
Apart from the Ubuntu versioning scheme not meeting the first two criteria of my test,
I can understand why it could fail the "100% self-explanatory" one (that's debatable, imho), but the second one is met.
copying Ubuntu would also make openSUSE the laugh of the town.
And why? My impression (and I have no idea if it's right -- on the contrary, I'd be happy to be proven wrong) is that you're saying this because you don't like Ubuntu in some way.
Why change? Even since the days of S.u.S.E it always been x.0, x.1, x.2, x.3 and I think a couple times x.4. We shouldn't change to any other distro naming ways. We are openSUSE, more and more lately I think we are trying to hard to mirror *buntu. Come on, leave it alone.
Exactly. A lot of people are under the impression that openSUSE is trying (poorly) to be Ubuntu - and copying their version scheme would just add to this.
I think what is place works, as a sys admin, I think we should follow the rule that if it ain't broke don't fix it.
There are a large number of problems with the current scheme which have all been touched upon in the thread(s) (I can't remember anymore what was on - project and what was on -factory). But I agree we shouldn't change it unless we are certain we have something that will work 100%. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Mandag den 12. juli 2010 14:24:41 skrev Pavol Rusnak:
On 07/12/2010 02:05 PM, Martin Schlander wrote:
Hmm, I use a different versioning scheme test :-)
* Must be 100% self-explanatory * Must not be possible to install a very old version thinking it's recent * Must not smell of Ubuntu
Does openSUSE 11.2, 11.3, 12, 13, 14, 15 meet this criteria? Or it smells of Fedora? :-)
It doesn't meet criteria #2, because there's no year in it. But that criteria might not be so important after all, because the people installing outdated versions from old magazines or CDs they found in the basement, probably can't be helped no matter what. I guess it's almost impossible to get an odourless versioning scheme - a Fedora or Mandriva odour wouldn't be nearly as harmful as a stench of Ubuntu. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
I did not follow all of this thread, so just a few comments.
copying Ubuntu would also make openSUSE the laugh of the town.
And why? My impression (and I have no idea if it's right -- on the contrary, I'd be happy to be proven wrong) is that you're saying this because you don't like Ubuntu in some way.
There are _many_ reasons why I would hate to see openSUSE mimic Ubuntu in whatever way.
Why change? Even since the days of S.u.S.E it always been x.0, x.1, x.2, x.3 and I think a couple times x.4. We shouldn't change to any other distro naming ways. We are openSUSE, more and more lately I think we are trying to hard to mirror *buntu. Come on, leave it alone.
Well said. I really like the current scheme with openSUSE x.1 being the base for SLE. In in my opinion it makes perfectly sense: openSUSE is "bleeding edge technology" for the enthusiast, SLE is mature technology for (paying) customers who are looking for professional support models. Regards, Peter -- Training, Projekte, Beratung rund um Open Source Software Peter Albrecht Tel: +49-(0)-89-89040475 Ulmenstraße 7 Mob: +49-(0)-173-3528664 85609 Aschheim https://www.xing.com/profile/Peter_Albrecht3 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Monday 12 July 2010 14:33:04 Chuck Payne wrote:
Why change? Even since the days of S.u.S.E it always been x.0, x.1, x.2, x.3 and I think a couple times x.4. We shouldn't change to any other distro naming ways. We are openSUSE, more and more lately I think we are trying to hard to mirror *buntu. Come on, leave it alone. [...]
Even if we do not change the versioning scheme, we have to clearly document how it works - and what the algorithm is for changing the numbers. Currently this is black art ;) Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, Program Manager openSUSE, aj@{novell.com,opensuse.org} Twitter: jaegerandi | Identica: jaegerandi SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
Am Monday 12 July 2010 14:59:01 schrieb Andreas Jaeger:
On Monday 12 July 2010 14:33:04 Chuck Payne wrote:
Why change? Even since the days of S.u.S.E it always been x.0, x.1, x.2, x.3 and I think a couple times x.4. We shouldn't change to any other distro naming ways. We are openSUSE, more and more lately I think we are trying to hard to mirror *buntu. Come on, leave it alone. [...]
Even if we do not change the versioning scheme, we have to clearly document how it works - and what the algorithm is for changing the numbers. Currently this is black art ;)
Is it really? To me it always has been obvious that the numbering scheme was as Chuck mentioned. The only .4 versions we had have been 4.4.2 and 6.4, all other majors versions ran minor versions .0 to .3. And SLE has been based on .1 (I'm not sure for SLES 7 and SLES 8, though). Peter -- Training, Projekte, Beratung rund um Open Source Software Peter Albrecht Tel: +49-(0)-89-89040475 Ulmenstraße 7 Mob: +49-(0)-173-3528664 85609 Aschheim https://www.xing.com/profile/Peter_Albrecht3 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Mandag den 12. juli 2010 14:28:05 skrev Vincent Untz:
Le lundi 12 juillet 2010, à 14:16 +0200, Martin Schlander a écrit :
Mandag den 12. juli 2010 14:07:56 skrev Vincent Untz:
Le lundi 12 juillet 2010, à 14:05 +0200, Martin Schlander a écrit :
* Must not smell of Ubuntu
Why?
Apart from the Ubuntu versioning scheme not meeting the first two criteria of my test,
I can understand why it could fail the "100% self-explanatory" one (that's debatable, imho), but the second one is met.
copying Ubuntu would also make openSUSE the laugh of the town.
And why?
That's just how it works. If you blatantly copy your competiton it makes you look bad. "Copying" Fedora or Mandriva version schemes wouldn't be nearly as bad, because a) their version schemes a less uniquely their own and b) almost noone would accuse openSUSE of wanting to be in their shoes.
My impression (and I have no idea if it's right -- on the contrary, I'd be happy to be proven wrong) is that you're saying this because you don't like Ubuntu in some way.
It's true that there's a very long list of things about Ubuntu I hate with a passion, but that doesn't prevent me from being rational about the issue at hand. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On 07/12/2010 03:05 PM, Peter Albrecht wrote:
Is it really? To me it always has been obvious that the numbering scheme was as Chuck mentioned.
Exactly, but it seems this is going to change now, because we'll be having 11.4 and maybe even 11.5 (read email by Michael Loeffler above in this thread). If we want to avoid more confusion, we really have to document this. -- Best Regards / S pozdravom, Pavol RUSNAK SUSE LINUX, s.r.o openSUSE Boosters Team Lihovarska 1060/12 PGP 0xA6917144 19000 Praha 9 prusnak[at]opensuse.org Czech Republic -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Martin Schlander wrote:
Hmm, I use a different versioning scheme test :-)
* Must be 100% self-explanatory * Must not be possible to install a very old version thinking it's recent * Must not smell of Ubuntu
* Must have meaning ? -- Per Jessen, Zürich (30.1°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Andreas Jaeger wrote:
On Monday 12 July 2010 14:33:04 Chuck Payne wrote:
Why change? Even since the days of S.u.S.E it always been x.0, x.1, x.2, x.3 and I think a couple times x.4. We shouldn't change to any other distro naming ways. We are openSUSE, more and more lately I think we are trying to hard to mirror *buntu. Come on, leave it alone. [...]
Even if we do not change the versioning scheme, we have to clearly document how it works - and what the algorithm is for changing the numbers. Currently this is black art ;)
Nono, it's only WHEN the numbers change that appears to be mostly arbitrary - the algoritms are straight forward: nextminor=prevminor+1 nextmajor=prevmajor+1 :-) -- Per Jessen, Zürich (30.1°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Mandag den 12. juli 2010 15:49:14 skrev Per Jessen:
Martin Schlander wrote:
Hmm, I use a different versioning scheme test :-)
* Must be 100% self-explanatory * Must not be possible to install a very old version thinking it's recent * Must not smell of Ubuntu
* Must have meaning ?
At least it must communicate that every release is unique and equally significant - unlike the current scheme. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Monday 12 July 2010 15:07:18 Pavol Rusnak wrote:
On 07/12/2010 03:05 PM, Peter Albrecht wrote:
Is it really? To me it always has been obvious that the numbering scheme was as Chuck mentioned.
Exactly, but it seems this is going to change now, because we'll be having 11.4 and maybe even 11.5 (read email by Michael Loeffler above in this thread). If we want to avoid more confusion, we really have to document this. Fully agreed, it needs documentation. Its better then guessing. I strongly propose to give the upcoming version the name openSUSE 11.4 as rushing this makes things more likely worse then they are and I don't see agreement on any of the discussed version schemes. I'm oppose to change the scheme to the sake of change but I'm open to change it to improve it.
Best Michael
-- Michael Löffler, Product Management SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - Nürnberg - AG Nürnberg - HRB 16746 - GF: Markus Rex -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Am Montag 12 Juli 2010 schrieb Michael Loeffler:
On Monday 12 July 2010 15:07:18 Pavol Rusnak wrote:
On 07/12/2010 03:05 PM, Peter Albrecht wrote:
Is it really? To me it always has been obvious that the numbering scheme was as Chuck mentioned.
Exactly, but it seems this is going to change now, because we'll be having 11.4 and maybe even 11.5 (read email by Michael Loeffler above in this thread). If we want to avoid more confusion, we really have to document this.
Fully agreed, it needs documentation. Its better then guessing. I strongly propose to give the upcoming version the name openSUSE 11.4 as rushing this makes things more likely worse then they are and I don't see agreement on any of the discussed version schemes. I'm oppose to change the scheme to the sake of change but I'm open to change it to improve it.
OK, so let's kill this thread: the openSUSE versioning scheme is as is: we have 11.X till we see a reason to jump to 12.0 - from then on we'll have 12.X. This X is increasing every 8 months. 3 months before release of every 11.X we'll discuss on opensuse-factory if the changes in 11.X are worth a 12.0. The board then will decide - this is not exactly a technical decision, it's only a collection of gut feelings that need to be collected. IMO a board's task. Reasons for a 12.0 from my point of view are: - drastic changes in user experience during installation or the way linux works - drastic changes in the base system that make it much harder than usual to do live updates. But again: I wouldn't try to describe the exact algorithm a new major version is picked upon, but make it an open process triggered by a timeline. Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Le 12/07/2010 16:43, Stephan Kulow a écrit :
OK, so let's kill this thread: the openSUSE versioning scheme is as is: we have 11.X till we see a reason to jump to 12.0 - from then on we'll have 12.X. This X is increasing every 8 months.
but who decide it to be so? it was never like this before...
But again: I wouldn't try to describe the exact algorithm a new major version is picked upon,
but it's *thisù that is needed. Changes are continuous. Shoudn't we change when pass from kde3.5 to 4? Gome XX.. or better change when Kernel go from 2.6 to 2.8... (we may have time...) any know system is better than none (or the present nobody knows system) jdd -- http://www.dodin.net http://www.facebook.com/pages/I-support-the-Linux-Documentation-Project/3720... http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-fan-page-of-Claire-Dodin/106485119372062?v... -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 16:43 +0200, Stephan Kulow wrote:
Am Montag 12 Juli 2010 schrieb Michael Loeffler:
On Monday 12 July 2010 15:07:18 Pavol Rusnak wrote:
On 07/12/2010 03:05 PM, Peter Albrecht wrote:
Is it really? To me it always has been obvious that the numbering scheme was as Chuck mentioned.
Exactly, but it seems this is going to change now, because we'll be having 11.4 and maybe even 11.5 (read email by Michael Loeffler above in this thread). If we want to avoid more confusion, we really have to document this.
Fully agreed, it needs documentation. Its better then guessing. I strongly propose to give the upcoming version the name openSUSE 11.4 as rushing this makes things more likely worse then they are and I don't see agreement on any of the discussed version schemes. I'm oppose to change the scheme to the sake of change but I'm open to change it to improve it.
OK, so let's kill this thread: the openSUSE versioning scheme is as is: we have 11.X till we see a reason to jump to 12.0 - from then on we'll have 12.X. This X is increasing every 8 months.
3 months before release of every 11.X we'll discuss on opensuse-factory if the changes in 11.X are worth a 12.0. The board then will decide - this is not exactly a technical decision, it's only a collection of gut feelings that need to be collected. IMO a board's task.
Reasons for a 12.0 from my point of view are: - drastic changes in user experience during installation or the way linux works - drastic changes in the base system that make it much harder than usual to do live updates.
But again: I wouldn't try to describe the exact algorithm a new major version is picked upon, but make it an open process triggered by a timeline.
Greetings, Stephan
This is a more saner approach, although I'd rather change "drastic" to "dramatic." :-) I like this because it not only communicates to the world what our versions mean, in a better way, but also gives us in the Community more motivation to be more "dramatic." It motivates us that if we want to get out of the current cycle, and onto the next major version, we better start thinking up innovative ways to do that. Ultimately, we'll need to define better what "drastic" or "dramatic" means in terms of versioning, but for now, let's go with 11.4 and steady as she goes! Bryen -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 11:05 +0200, Stephan Kulow wrote:
Am Mittwoch 07 Juli 2010 schrieb Bryen M. Yunashko:
numbers for the upcoming 11.3 release. I'm not expecting to see huge writeups out there about 11.3. I'm not expecting to hear a lot of buzz out there about 11.3. For one simple reason. The dot three sounds simply like a minor update to the family of openSUSE 11 product line.
Hi,
I can't stop thinking about this argument about minor version updates. What I wonder: did you see less reviews about Mac OS X updates after 10.0? I actually can't see any decline - and they seem still to sell quite a lot of new computers even though it's just a minor update.
So I'm all for staying with 11.X till we switch to 12.MONTH 2012.
Greetings, Stephan
In this example, its' more about marketing than about technical differences. We cannot deny that Apple is one hell of a marketing marvel and people just buy and buy and buy no matter what because it simply is Apple. Just look at the latest iPhone release. Despite the huge negative publicity about poor reception, people are still buying it in the millions. It is Apple, therefore you buy, no matter what. We don't have that kind of advantage, and thus we're more stuck in the "We have to explain why to 'buy' us" mode. I predict this will all change once we finally release the openSUSEPhone and openSUSEPod. No one will resist buying those. :-) Bryen -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Bryen M. Yunashko wrote:
We don't have that kind of advantage, and thus we're more stuck in the "We have to explain why to 'buy' us" mode. I predict this will all change once we finally release the openSUSEPhone and openSUSEPod. No one will resist buying those. :-)
Both in a variety of shades of green, with lizard-skin carrying cases ? -- Per Jessen, Zürich (31.6°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On 07/12/2010 04:43 PM, Stephan Kulow wrote:
The board then will decide - this is not exactly a technical decision, it's only a collection of gut feelings that need to be collected. IMO a board's task.
IMO this should be a task (amongst other technical decisions) for the soon-to-be-created Release Engineering Team (or whatever name we'll choose for this body). -- Best Regards / S pozdravom, Pavol RUSNAK SUSE LINUX, s.r.o openSUSE Boosters Team Lihovarska 1060/12 PGP 0xA6917144 19000 Praha 9 prusnak[at]opensuse.org Czech Republic -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Am Montag 12 Juli 2010 schrieb Pavol Rusnak:
On 07/12/2010 04:43 PM, Stephan Kulow wrote:
The board then will decide - this is not exactly a technical decision, it's only a collection of gut feelings that need to be collected. IMO a board's task.
IMO this should be a task (amongst other technical decisions) for the soon-to-be-created Release Engineering Team (or whatever name we'll choose for this body).
The board can choose to delegate :) Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Stephan Kulow
Am Montag 12 Juli 2010 schrieb Michael Loeffler:
On Monday 12 July 2010 15:07:18 Pavol Rusnak wrote:
On 07/12/2010 03:05 PM, Peter Albrecht wrote:
Is it really? To me it always has been obvious that the numbering scheme was as Chuck mentioned.
Exactly, but it seems this is going to change now, because we'll be having 11.4 and maybe even 11.5 (read email by Michael Loeffler above in this thread). If we want to avoid more confusion, we really have to document this.
Fully agreed, it needs documentation. Its better then guessing. I strongly propose to give the upcoming version the name openSUSE 11.4 as rushing this makes things more likely worse then they are and I don't see agreement on any of the discussed version schemes. I'm oppose to change the scheme to the sake of change but I'm open to change it to improve it.
OK, so let's kill this thread: the openSUSE versioning scheme is as is: we have 11.X till we see a reason to jump to 12.0 - from then on we'll have 12.X. This X is increasing every 8 months.
3 months before release of every 11.X we'll discuss on opensuse-factory if the changes in 11.X are worth a 12.0. The board then will decide - this is not exactly a technical decision, it's only a collection of gut feelings that need to be collected. IMO a board's task.
Reasons for a 12.0 from my point of view are: - drastic changes in user experience during installation or the way linux works - drastic changes in the base system that make it much harder than usual to do live updates.
But again: I wouldn't try to describe the exact algorithm a new major version is picked upon, but make it an open process triggered by a timeline.
Greetings, Stephan
So you want to wait until 3 months before 11.4/12.0 to decide? That seems way too late. I assume in a month or so we'll have the first 11.4/12.0 RC1. I think it needs to be decided by then for sure. Or are you saying that decision should have been made 3 months ago? More reasonable if people already knew what the key "dramatic" changes in 11.4/12.0 were going to be. But realistically, OS doesn't seem able to plan that far out yet. I certainly don't know what the key new features of 11.4/12.0 will be yet. Also, I really think openSUSE version numbers need to relate strongly to SLE.version numbers, or move to something clearly not related. (ie. Thinking several years out, having SLE 13 be released in 2018 while OS 14.2 is simultaneously being released seems very confusing and helps neither OS nor SLE.) I much prefer 11.x be continued until SLE 12 comes out, then 12.x until SLE 13 comes out, etc. Nice simple logic that avoids arguments about "dramatic changes". And since the SLE release cycle is long, it keeps the OS major release number from climbing too fast. Greg -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Stephan Kulow wrote:
Am Montag 12 Juli 2010 schrieb Michael Loeffler:
On Monday 12 July 2010 15:07:18 Pavol Rusnak wrote:
On 07/12/2010 03:05 PM, Peter Albrecht wrote:
Is it really? To me it always has been obvious that the numbering scheme was as Chuck mentioned.
Exactly, but it seems this is going to change now, because we'll be having 11.4 and maybe even 11.5 (read email by Michael Loeffler above in this thread). If we want to avoid more confusion, we really have to document this.
Fully agreed, it needs documentation. Its better then guessing. I strongly propose to give the upcoming version the name openSUSE 11.4 as rushing this makes things more likely worse then they are and I don't see agreement on any of the discussed version schemes. I'm oppose to change the scheme to the sake of change but I'm open to change it to improve it.
OK, so let's kill this thread: the openSUSE versioning scheme is as is: we have 11.X till we see a reason to jump to 12.0 - from then on we'll have 12.X. This X is increasing every 8 months.
Sounds good to me.
3 months before release of every 11.X we'll discuss on opensuse-factory if the changes in 11.X are worth a 12.0.
Hmm, I'm not very fond of that - couldn't we try to plan ahead and decide the next major released based on major changes "queued up"?
The board then will decide - this is not exactly a technical decision, it's only a collection of gut feelings that need to be collected. IMO a board's task.
Agree.
Reasons for a 12.0 from my point of view are: - drastic changes in user experience during installation or the way linux works - drastic changes in the base system that make it much harder than usual to do live updates.
But again: I wouldn't try to describe the exact algorithm a new major version is picked upon, but make it an open process triggered by a timeline.
How about: 1) always assume the next release is a minor release This means any major change cannot be incorporated, and will have to be scheduled. 2) when enough major changes are scheduled, the next release becomes a major. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (31.6°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Am Montag 12 Juli 2010 schrieb Greg Freemyer:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Stephan Kulow
wrote: Am Montag 12 Juli 2010 schrieb Michael Loeffler:
On Monday 12 July 2010 15:07:18 Pavol Rusnak wrote:
On 07/12/2010 03:05 PM, Peter Albrecht wrote:
Is it really? To me it always has been obvious that the numbering scheme was as Chuck mentioned.
Exactly, but it seems this is going to change now, because we'll be having 11.4 and maybe even 11.5 (read email by Michael Loeffler above in this thread). If we want to avoid more confusion, we really have to document this.
Fully agreed, it needs documentation. Its better then guessing. I strongly propose to give the upcoming version the name openSUSE 11.4 as rushing this makes things more likely worse then they are and I don't see agreement on any of the discussed version schemes. I'm oppose to change the scheme to the sake of change but I'm open to change it to improve it.
OK, so let's kill this thread: the openSUSE versioning scheme is as is: we have 11.X till we see a reason to jump to 12.0 - from then on we'll have 12.X. This X is increasing every 8 months.
3 months before release of every 11.X we'll discuss on opensuse-factory if the changes in 11.X are worth a 12.0. The board then will decide - this is not exactly a technical decision, it's only a collection of gut feelings that need to be collected. IMO a board's task.
Reasons for a 12.0 from my point of view are: - drastic changes in user experience during installation or the way linux works - drastic changes in the base system that make it much harder than usual to do live updates.
But again: I wouldn't try to describe the exact algorithm a new major version is picked upon, but make it an open process triggered by a timeline.
Greetings, Stephan
So you want to wait until 3 months before 11.4/12.0 to decide? That seems way too late. I assume in a month or so we'll have the first 11.4/12.0 RC1. I think it needs to be decided by then for sure.
Huh? 11.4 is 8 months away pretty much exactly - meaning the 12.0 discussion is 5 months away - pretty much exactly. The RC1 is _two_ months after _that_, no idea where you get your data from. Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Le 12/07/2010 17:15, Per Jessen a écrit :
2) when enough major changes are scheduled, the next release becomes a major.
problem is that we are not the guy that plan change, nor for kde nor Gnome nor kernel (and will mc change be major? for me it may be) any GNU/Linux distribution try to cope with the new major apps release cycle, but fail to do. Do you think all the other Distros stop using this sheme for nothing? and who cares about SLES/SLED in the openSUSE world??? nobody. If Novell asks the openSUSE sheme to be connected to SLES/SLED, why not, but if no Novell representative give us any security about this, stop thinking about this one, or we may be ridiculous pretty soon. jdd -- http://www.dodin.net http://www.facebook.com/pages/I-support-the-Linux-Documentation-Project/3720... http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-fan-page-of-Claire-Dodin/106485119372062?v... -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Stephan Kulow
Am Montag 12 Juli 2010 schrieb Greg Freemyer:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Stephan Kulow
wrote: Am Montag 12 Juli 2010 schrieb Michael Loeffler:
On Monday 12 July 2010 15:07:18 Pavol Rusnak wrote:
On 07/12/2010 03:05 PM, Peter Albrecht wrote:
Is it really? To me it always has been obvious that the numbering scheme was as Chuck mentioned.
Exactly, but it seems this is going to change now, because we'll be having 11.4 and maybe even 11.5 (read email by Michael Loeffler above in this thread). If we want to avoid more confusion, we really have to document this.
Fully agreed, it needs documentation. Its better then guessing. I strongly propose to give the upcoming version the name openSUSE 11.4 as rushing this makes things more likely worse then they are and I don't see agreement on any of the discussed version schemes. I'm oppose to change the scheme to the sake of change but I'm open to change it to improve it.
OK, so let's kill this thread: the openSUSE versioning scheme is as is: we have 11.X till we see a reason to jump to 12.0 - from then on we'll have 12.X. This X is increasing every 8 months.
3 months before release of every 11.X we'll discuss on opensuse-factory if the changes in 11.X are worth a 12.0. The board then will decide - this is not exactly a technical decision, it's only a collection of gut feelings that need to be collected. IMO a board's task.
Reasons for a 12.0 from my point of view are: - drastic changes in user experience during installation or the way linux works - drastic changes in the base system that make it much harder than usual to do live updates.
But again: I wouldn't try to describe the exact algorithm a new major version is picked upon, but make it an open process triggered by a timeline.
Greetings, Stephan
So you want to wait until 3 months before 11.4/12.0 to decide? That seems way too late. I assume in a month or so we'll have the first 11.4/12.0 RC1. I think it needs to be decided by then for sure.
Huh? 11.4 is 8 months away pretty much exactly - meaning the 12.0 discussion is 5 months away - pretty much exactly. The RC1 is _two_ months after _that_, no idea where you get your data from.
Greetings, Stephan
For clarity, your proposing the release major / minor discussion take place 11 months prior to the actual release. right? (Clearly that's not how I read your proposal). ie. 5 months from now is 11 months prior to 11.3 + 2. Does the core team know enough that early on to decide / discuss? I mean 3 months ago was there already discussion of the features expected for 11.3+1. Could the 11.4 v 12.0 discussion have reasonably taken place back then? I don't even know the key features now, except I assume HAL going away is a 11.3 + 1 goal. Greg -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
jdd wrote:
Le 12/07/2010 17:15, Per Jessen a écrit :
2) when enough major changes are scheduled, the next release becomes a major.
problem is that we are not the guy that plan change, nor for kde nor Gnome nor kernel (and will mc change be major? for me it may be)
No, but we do plan those cghanges for openSUSE, which is what we are talking about.
any GNU/Linux distribution try to cope with the new major apps release cycle, but fail to do.
Do you think all the other Distros stop using this sheme for nothing?
Sorry, I don't keep up with what all the other distros are doing. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (32.1°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Am Montag 12 Juli 2010 schrieb Per Jessen:
OK, so let's kill this thread: the openSUSE versioning scheme is as is: we have 11.X till we see a reason to jump to 12.0 - from then on we'll have 12.X. This X is increasing every 8 months.
Sounds good to me. Cool! I know everyone is fond of killing threads.
Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Mandag den 12. juli 2010 16:43:02 skrev Stephan Kulow:
Am Montag 12 Juli 2010 schrieb Michael Loeffler:
On Monday 12 July 2010 15:07:18 Pavol Rusnak wrote:
On 07/12/2010 03:05 PM, Peter Albrecht wrote:
Is it really? To me it always has been obvious that the numbering scheme was as Chuck mentioned.
Exactly, but it seems this is going to change now, because we'll be having 11.4 and maybe even 11.5 (read email by Michael Loeffler above in this thread). If we want to avoid more confusion, we really have to document this.
Fully agreed, it needs documentation. Its better then guessing. I strongly propose to give the upcoming version the name openSUSE 11.4 as rushing this makes things more likely worse then they are and I don't see agreement on any of the discussed version schemes. I'm oppose to change the scheme to the sake of change but I'm open to change it to improve it.
OK, so let's kill this thread: the openSUSE versioning scheme is as is: we have 11.X till we see a reason to jump to 12.0 - from then on we'll have 12.X. This X is increasing every 8 months.
3 months before release of every 11.X we'll discuss on opensuse-factory if the changes in 11.X are worth a 12.0. The board then will decide - this is not exactly a technical decision, it's only a collection of gut feelings that need to be collected. IMO a board's task.
Reasons for a 12.0 from my point of view are: - drastic changes in user experience during installation or the way linux works - drastic changes in the base system that make it much harder than usual to do live updates.
11.3+1 will have a big jump from KDE SC 4.4->4.6 with akonadified KDEPIM and GNOME3, so I guess it would be a good candidate for a 12.0 :-) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Am Montag, 12. Juli 2010, 17:42:12 schrieb Martin Schlander:
Mandag den 12. juli 2010 16:43:02 skrev Stephan Kulow:
Am Montag 12 Juli 2010 schrieb Michael Loeffler:
On Monday 12 July 2010 15:07:18 Pavol Rusnak wrote:
On 07/12/2010 03:05 PM, Peter Albrecht wrote:
Is it really? To me it always has been obvious that the numbering scheme was as Chuck mentioned.
Exactly, but it seems this is going to change now, because we'll be having 11.4 and maybe even 11.5 (read email by Michael Loeffler above in this thread). If we want to avoid more confusion, we really have to document this.
Fully agreed, it needs documentation. Its better then guessing. I strongly propose to give the upcoming version the name openSUSE 11.4 as rushing this makes things more likely worse then they are and I don't see agreement on any of the discussed version schemes. I'm oppose to change the scheme to the sake of change but I'm open to change it to improve it.
OK, so let's kill this thread: the openSUSE versioning scheme is as is: we have 11.X till we see a reason to jump to 12.0 - from then on we'll have 12.X. This X is increasing every 8 months.
3 months before release of every 11.X we'll discuss on opensuse-factory if the changes in 11.X are worth a 12.0. The board then will decide - this is not exactly a technical decision, it's only a collection of gut feelings that need to be collected. IMO a board's task.
Reasons for a 12.0 from my point of view are: - drastic changes in user experience during installation or the way linux
works
- drastic changes in the base system that make it much harder than usual
to do live updates.
11.3+1 will have a big jump from KDE SC 4.4->4.6 with akonadified KDEPIM and GNOME3, so I guess it would be a good candidate for a 12.0 :-)
Let's discuss this when we see it. "akonadified kdepim" doesn't sound like a good argument to me :) Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Am Montag, 12. Juli 2010, 17:27:18 schrieb Greg Freemyer:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Stephan Kulow
wrote: Am Montag 12 Juli 2010 schrieb Greg Freemyer:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Stephan Kulow
wrote: Am Montag 12 Juli 2010 schrieb Michael Loeffler:
On Monday 12 July 2010 15:07:18 Pavol Rusnak wrote:
On 07/12/2010 03:05 PM, Peter Albrecht wrote: > Is it really? To me it always has been obvious that the numbering > scheme was as Chuck mentioned.
Exactly, but it seems this is going to change now, because we'll be having 11.4 and maybe even 11.5 (read email by Michael Loeffler above in this thread). If we want to avoid more confusion, we really have to document this.
Fully agreed, it needs documentation. Its better then guessing. I strongly propose to give the upcoming version the name openSUSE 11.4 as rushing this makes things more likely worse then they are and I don't see agreement on any of the discussed version schemes. I'm oppose to change the scheme to the sake of change but I'm open to change it to improve it.
OK, so let's kill this thread: the openSUSE versioning scheme is as is: we have 11.X till we see a reason to jump to 12.0 - from then on we'll have 12.X. This X is increasing every 8 months.
3 months before release of every 11.X we'll discuss on opensuse-factory if the changes in 11.X are worth a 12.0. The board then will decide - this is not exactly a technical decision, it's only a collection of gut feelings that need to be collected. IMO a board's task.
Reasons for a 12.0 from my point of view are: - drastic changes in user experience during installation or the way linux works - drastic changes in the base system that make it much harder than usual to do live updates.
But again: I wouldn't try to describe the exact algorithm a new major version is picked upon, but make it an open process triggered by a timeline.
Greetings, Stephan
So you want to wait until 3 months before 11.4/12.0 to decide? That seems way too late. I assume in a month or so we'll have the first 11.4/12.0 RC1. I think it needs to be decided by then for sure.
Huh? 11.4 is 8 months away pretty much exactly - meaning the 12.0 discussion is 5 months away - pretty much exactly. The RC1 is _two_ months after _that_, no idea where you get your data from.
Greetings, Stephan
For clarity, your proposing the release major / minor discussion take place 11 months prior to the actual release. right? (Clearly that's not how I read your proposal).
I said: 3 months before 11.X release we discuss to rename 11.X - it was you who added the +1 somewhere. Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Mandag den 12. juli 2010 18:29:07 skrev Stephan Kulow:
Am Montag, 12. Juli 2010, 17:42:12 schrieb Martin Schlander:
11.3+1 will have a big jump from KDE SC 4.4->4.6 with akonadified KDEPIM and GNOME3, so I guess it would be a good candidate for a 12.0 :-)
Let's discuss this when we see it. "akonadified kdepim" doesn't sound like a good argument to me :)
So changes being drastic is not enough, they also have to be improvments? >:-) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Monday 2010-07-12 14:07, Vincent Untz wrote:
Le lundi 12 juillet 2010, à 14:05 +0200, Martin Schlander a écrit :
* Must not smell of Ubuntu
Why?
Rhetoric: Why don't we just align all our release cycles, switch to deb, and base our packages off off Ubuntu? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Monday 2010-07-12 14:59, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
On Monday 12 July 2010 14:33:04 Chuck Payne wrote:
Why change? Even since the days of S.u.S.E it always been x.0, x.1, x.2, x.3 and I think a couple times x.4. We shouldn't change to any other distro naming ways. We are openSUSE, more and more lately I think we are trying to hard to mirror *buntu. Come on, leave it alone. [...]
Even if we do not change the versioning scheme, we have to clearly document how it works - and what the algorithm is for changing the numbers. Currently this is black art ;)
Hey, even while (1) { if (rand() == 0) ++bump; } is an algorithm by definition of CS! -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Stephan Kulow
Am Montag, 12. Juli 2010, 17:27:18 schrieb Greg Freemyer:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Stephan Kulow
wrote: Am Montag 12 Juli 2010 schrieb Greg Freemyer:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Stephan Kulow
wrote: Am Montag 12 Juli 2010 schrieb Michael Loeffler:
On Monday 12 July 2010 15:07:18 Pavol Rusnak wrote: > On 07/12/2010 03:05 PM, Peter Albrecht wrote: > > Is it really? To me it always has been obvious that the numbering > > scheme was as Chuck mentioned. > > Exactly, but it seems this is going to change now, because we'll be > having 11.4 and maybe even 11.5 (read email by Michael Loeffler > above in this thread). If we want to avoid more confusion, we > really have to document this.
Fully agreed, it needs documentation. Its better then guessing. I strongly propose to give the upcoming version the name openSUSE 11.4 as rushing this makes things more likely worse then they are and I don't see agreement on any of the discussed version schemes. I'm oppose to change the scheme to the sake of change but I'm open to change it to improve it.
OK, so let's kill this thread: the openSUSE versioning scheme is as is: we have 11.X till we see a reason to jump to 12.0 - from then on we'll have 12.X. This X is increasing every 8 months.
3 months before release of every 11.X we'll discuss on opensuse-factory if the changes in 11.X are worth a 12.0. The board then will decide - this is not exactly a technical decision, it's only a collection of gut feelings that need to be collected. IMO a board's task.
Reasons for a 12.0 from my point of view are: - drastic changes in user experience during installation or the way linux works - drastic changes in the base system that make it much harder than usual to do live updates.
But again: I wouldn't try to describe the exact algorithm a new major version is picked upon, but make it an open process triggered by a timeline.
Greetings, Stephan
So you want to wait until 3 months before 11.4/12.0 to decide? That seems way too late. I assume in a month or so we'll have the first 11.4/12.0 RC1. I think it needs to be decided by then for sure.
Huh? 11.4 is 8 months away pretty much exactly - meaning the 12.0 discussion is 5 months away - pretty much exactly. The RC1 is _two_ months after _that_, no idea where you get your data from.
Greetings, Stephan
For clarity, your proposing the release major / minor discussion take place 11 months prior to the actual release. right? (Clearly that's not how I read your proposal).
I said: 3 months before 11.X release we discuss to rename 11.X - it was you who added the +1 somewhere.
So you are saying: == For the next 5 months we call the next release 11.4 and have release 11.4 M1, etc. Then in Dec. 2010 have a 11.4 v 12.0 discussion on the factory list about the actual release version number. And if based on that discussion the board decides to bump the major number, I guess we jump to 12.0 RC1, RC2 after the milestone series. == I just had a very hard time conceptually believing you proposed bumping the release numbers after the milestone series had started. (of course, if and only if warranted.) Greg -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Monday 2010-07-12 16:08, Martin Schlander wrote:
Mandag den 12. juli 2010 15:49:14 skrev Per Jessen:
Martin Schlander wrote:
Hmm, I use a different versioning scheme test :-)
* Must be 100% self-explanatory * Must not be possible to install a very old version thinking it's recent * Must not smell of Ubuntu
* Must have meaning ?
At least it must communicate that every release is unique and equally significant -
Or equally insignificant. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Le lundi 12 juillet 2010, à 19:18 +0200, Jan Engelhardt a écrit :
On Monday 2010-07-12 14:07, Vincent Untz wrote:
Le lundi 12 juillet 2010, à 14:05 +0200, Martin Schlander a écrit :
* Must not smell of Ubuntu
Why?
Rhetoric:
Why don't we just align all our release cycles, switch to deb, and base our packages off off Ubuntu?
Sigh. I'm not even saying we should use the Ubuntu versioning scheme. I just think it's bad that we reject something simply because it comes from Ubuntu (or Fedora, or Mandriva, or Debian, or Gentoo, or GNOME, or KDE, or...). It shouldn't matter: what matters is if it's good or bad, not where it comes from. If we can't do this, then that's a really big issue. Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Monday 2010-07-12 19:58, Vincent Untz wrote:
On Monday 2010-07-12 14:07, Vincent Untz wrote:
Le lundi 12 juillet 2010, à 14:05 +0200, Martin Schlander a écrit :
* Must not smell of Ubuntu Why?
Rhetoric:
Why don't we just align all our release cycles, switch to deb, and base our packages off off Ubuntu?
Sigh. I'm not even saying we should use the Ubuntu versioning scheme.
I just think it's bad that we reject something simply because it comes from Ubuntu (or Fedora, or Mandriva, or Debian, or Gentoo, or GNOME, or KDE, or...). It shouldn't matter: what matters is if it's good or bad, not where it comes from.
Yes that's precisely what's formulated in the SQ&QS distro strategy proposal. Now point me to something they had a major role in inventing and has proven itself. And by that I don't mean the purty nvidia installer. :=) About version numbers... version numbers act a bit like trademarks --- well trademarks is the wrong word --- act like "branding". You want to avoid "copying" that. The world surely would be stirred up if, say, Fedora changed its identifying color from red to green. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
At least it must communicate that every release is unique and equally significant -
Or equally insignificant.
Same thing. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (19.6°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 7:58 PM, Vincent Untz
Le lundi 12 juillet 2010, à 19:18 +0200, Jan Engelhardt a écrit :
On Monday 2010-07-12 14:07, Vincent Untz wrote:
Le lundi 12 juillet 2010, à 14:05 +0200, Martin Schlander a écrit :
* Must not smell of Ubuntu
Why?
Rhetoric:
Why don't we just align all our release cycles, switch to deb, and base our packages off off Ubuntu?
Sigh. I'm not even saying we should use the Ubuntu versioning scheme.
I just think it's bad that we reject something simply because it comes from Ubuntu (or Fedora, or Mandriva, or Debian, or Gentoo, or GNOME, or KDE, or...). It shouldn't matter: what matters is if it's good or bad, not where it comes from.
If we can't do this, then that's a really big issue.
Vincent
Hi there, I couldn't agree more with Vincent on this. I really think we have other thing to work on than to decide a number for the next release every 8 months. The "not invented here" syndrome is a disease, and if any numbering scheme is working and is good, then we should use it. Anyway, if we're unable to agree on a versioning system, here's an alternative way: Write "minor" and "major" on two boxes full of food. Put them inside a fish tank. Bring Paul-the-German-octopus inside, and let him decide if we should increase the minor or the major number while we are all happily working on the next release.Paul never fails anyway (hmm, -almost- never fails). R. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Rémy Marquis wrote:
Anyway, if we're unable to agree on a versioning system, here's an alternative way:
If we're unable to agree, we just stick with what we have? -- Per Jessen, Zürich (20.6°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Monday 12 July 2010 19:21:33 Greg Freemyer wrote:
[...] So you are saying:
== For the next 5 months we call the next release 11.4 and have release 11.4 M1, etc.
Then in Dec. 2010 have a 11.4 v 12.0 discussion on the factory list about the actual release version number.
And if based on that discussion the board decides to bump the major number, I guess we jump to 12.0 RC1, RC2 after the milestone series. ==
I just had a very hard time conceptually believing you proposed bumping the release numbers after the milestone series had started. (of course, if and only if warranted.)
Yes, that's how I understood him all the time, Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, Program Manager openSUSE, aj@{novell.com,opensuse.org} Twitter: jaegerandi | Identica: jaegerandi SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
The world surely would be stirred up if, say, Fedora changed its identifying color from red to green.
I like the blue branding Fedora is using these days. No sign of
red there, and I have yet to see any stir up. :-)
Gerald
--
Dr. Gerald Pfeifer
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010, Peter Albrecht wrote:
I really like the current scheme with openSUSE x.1 being the base for SLE. In in my opinion it makes perfectly sense: openSUSE is "bleeding edge technology" for the enthusiast, SLE is mature technology for (paying) customers who are looking for professional support models.
Well, I assume you are not suggesting that I pull SLE 12 in by two
years just to accomodate the openSUSE version scheme, though? ;-)
If the goal is to see openSUSE 12.1 as the base for SLE 12, the next
three versions of openSUSE will be 11.4, 11.5 and 11.6 or similar.
That said, I don't think we should force openSUSE to accomodate SLE
here and rather make its own choice(s).
Gerald
--
Dr. Gerald Pfeifer
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
That said, I don't think we should force openSUSE to accomodate SLE here and rather make its own choice(s).
If we had some sort of official statement wrt openSUSE/SLEx versioning, it would make sense to give it due consideration, but as we haven't I agree with Gerald. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (26.5°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Tuesday 13 July 2010 20:45:22 Per Jessen wrote:
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
That said, I don't think we should force openSUSE to accomodate SLE here and rather make its own choice(s).
If we had some sort of official statement wrt openSUSE/SLEx versioning, it would make sense to give it due consideration, but as we haven't I agree with Gerald.
Per, I consider Gerald's word good enough to move forward to do what's best for openSUSE. ;) If we as openSUSE project think that an openSUSE version should be related to SLES (like Michl suggest 12.x for SLE12, or I suggested go to 12.0 now and to 13.0 once SLE12 is out), let's do it - but if we think this does not make sense to be related, let's change it. Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, Program Manager openSUSE, aj@{novell.com,opensuse.org} Twitter: jaegerandi | Identica: jaegerandi SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
Hello, Here are my thoughts on the issue: 1) current versioning scheme isn't messy, but it should be clearly specified when change from X.x to Y.x occurs. In wiki, preferably official documentation, somewhere. 2) having easily identifiable and visible code names is a great idea. Most distros do have code names following some pattern. As a classy system of European origin but international community, I suggest using latin names of stars, galaxies and constellations for openSUSE. If taken already, something else in similar wake. Latin names of green plants would also be fitting. I do know releases are already codenamed, but that's not presented to users. Not even distrowatch lists those. At least more visibility, preferably with dead language that's alive and well like latin. Latin also has this serious feeling to it. 3) keeping in mind, that at some point release structure could change, planning point 1 ahead and defining it clearly is essential. Take it easy, Otso -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Andreas Jaeger wrote:
On Tuesday 13 July 2010 20:45:22 Per Jessen wrote:
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
That said, I don't think we should force openSUSE to accomodate SLE here and rather make its own choice(s).
If we had some sort of official statement wrt openSUSE/SLEx versioning, it would make sense to give it due consideration, but as we haven't I agree with Gerald.
Per, I consider Gerald's word good enough to move forward to do what's best for openSUSE. ;)
Ah, you obviously know Gerald better than I do - I thought I'd just give him my 2Rappen support :-) -- Per Jessen, Zürich (25.3°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Am Montag 12 Juli 2010 schrieb Greg Freemyer:
So you are saying:
== For the next 5 months we call the next release 11.4 and have release 11.4 M1, etc.
Then in Dec. 2010 have a 11.4 v 12.0 discussion on the factory list about the actual release version number.
And if based on that discussion the board decides to bump the major number, I guess we jump to 12.0 RC1, RC2 after the milestone series. ==
I just had a very hard time conceptually believing you proposed bumping the release numbers after the milestone series had started. (of course, if and only if warranted.)
This is eactly what I'm saying. Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
participants (21)
-
Andreas Jaeger
-
Bryen M. Yunashko
-
Chuck Payne
-
DenverD
-
Gerald Pfeifer
-
Greg Freemyer
-
Jan Engelhardt
-
jdd
-
Ludwig Nussel
-
Malcolm
-
Martin Schlander
-
Michael Loeffler
-
Otso
-
Pavol Rusnak
-
Per Jessen
-
Peter Albrecht
-
Peter Linnell
-
Ricardo Chung
-
Rémy Marquis
-
Stephan Kulow
-
Vincent Untz