I voted too.... 2011/3/15 Kostas Koudaras :

Voted too Do we need an article or something about it in order to advertize that to all or do we keep that inside the community? I am willing to write something about it. Kostas

2011/3/15 Bruno Friedmann :

...

On 03/15/2011 12:15 PM, Andreas Jaeger wrote:

...

Following up the discussions on what scheme to use for the openSUSE version, I've created a survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/ZYC5PYZ

This is the first iteration. Coolo and myself discussed to use a second survey with the group of winners on connect.opensuse.org

Andreas

Andreas I think a typo exist in The following data based options are under consideration: -> following date based

Voted .

--

Bruno Friedmann Ioda-Net Sàrl www.ioda-net.ch

openSUSE Member & Ambassador GPG KEY : D5C9B751C4653227 irc: tigerfoot -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

-- http://opensuse.gr http://amb.opensuse.gr http://own.opensuse.gr http://warlordfff.tk me I am not me ------- Time travel is possible, you just need to know the right aliens -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

-- George Bratsos http://en.opensuse.org/User:Etern4L http://amb.opensuse.gr http://own.opensuse.gr http://www.linuxteam.cs.teilar.gr http://etern4l.wordpress.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On Tuesday, March 15, 2011 15:56:46 Kostas Koudaras wrote:

Voted too Do we need an article or something about it in order to advertize that to all or do we keep that inside the community? I am willing to write something about it.

I think this is a project decision, so I would not advertize for worldwide contribution by everybody. On the other hand, it's an open vote... 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 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 11:29:34 -0400, Chuck Payne wrote:

Me too, though I wish we just keep numbering, it is a part of name, like me change my last name from Payne to Smith.

Same here, I don't see a compelling reason to change, maybe just a compelling reason to define what constitutes a major version number increase. Jim -- Jim Henderson Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 19:02, jdd wrote:

Le 15/03/2011 17:56, Jim Henderson a écrit :

...

Same here, I don't see a compelling reason to change, maybe just a compelling reason to define what constitutes a major version number increase.

you see... even you don't see that there are no major/minor difference...

Ha, and yet people still think that the openSUSE dot zero release is "bad" and one to shy away from. If anything comes of this discussion, I really hope it finds a way to squash that particular myth once and for all... C. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

Frederic Crozat wrote:

Le mardi 15 mars 2011 à 19:29 +0100, C a écrit :

...

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 19:02, jdd wrote:

...

Le 15/03/2011 17:56, Jim Henderson a écrit :

...

Same here, I don't see a compelling reason to change, maybe just a compelling reason to define what constitutes a major version number increase.

you see... even you don't see that there are no major/minor difference...

Ha, and yet people still think that the openSUSE dot zero release is "bad" and one to shy away from. If anything comes of this discussion, I really hope it finds a way to squash that particular myth once and for all...

Funny, at Mandriva, we had the exact same myths regarding .0 and .1 release (2009.0 vs 2009.1) : people were sure there were less bugs in .1 vs .0, even if there was the exact same amount of breakag^Wfeatures for each new release.

This is the way it has often been in commercial software. A .0 is a major release, hence it will have significant new features and therefore significantly more bugs. Early adopters go for the .0 release (or even earlier), laggards wait for the .1, .2 or later. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (10.7°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On Tue, 2011-03-15 at 19:29 +0100, C wrote:

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 19:02, jdd wrote:

...

Le 15/03/2011 17:56, Jim Henderson a écrit :

...

Same here, I don't see a compelling reason to change, maybe just a compelling reason to define what constitutes a major version number increase. you see... even you don't see that there are no major/minor difference... Ha, and yet people still think that the openSUSE dot zero release is "bad" and one to shy away from.

Of course, if *one* person thinks as described then the statement is true. I don't, so it is also true to say. "People have no concerns whatsoever about deploying a dot zero openSUSE release".

If anything comes of this discussion, I really hope it finds a way to squash that particular myth once and for all...

-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On Tuesday, March 15, 2011 07:42:54 PM Jim Henderson wrote:

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 19:02:14 +0100, jdd wrote:

...

Le 15/03/2011 17:56, Jim Henderson a écrit :

...

Same here, I don't see a compelling reason to change, maybe just a compelling reason to define what constitutes a major version number increase.

you see... even you don't see that there are no major/minor difference...

Well, no, that's not what I was saying, I was saying that for a discussion about versioning the topic shouldn't really be "what scheme should we use" but rather "what constitutes a large enough difference between two releases to instead of going from 11.3 to 11.4 make it a change from 11.3 to 12.0".

IOW, I think the discussion we're having at this stage is the wrong one.

I don't think so, we're discussing each and every time when to go to 12.0 and find no solution for it. Instead we make our distribution worth since we don't feel it's good enough to be a new major release. But we do not have a major release like that anymore, all releases are equally major - or equally minor ;) - and therefore let's find an algorithmic way to define this. If you have another easy algorithm, I'd like to hear it even if voting has already started... 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 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 04:41:39PM -0400, Chuck Payne wrote:

Why is the name an issue now? We got this long, now almost after 12 years we want to change the way of doing. I don't get it.

+1 -- Bye, Stephan Barth Novell Technical Services, Worldwide Support Services Linux SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstr. 5, D-90409 Nuremberg -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 21:07:55 +0100, Andreas Jaeger wrote:

...

IOW, I think the discussion we're having at this stage is the wrong one.

I don't think so, we're discussing each and every time when to go to 12.0 and find no solution for it. Instead we make our distribution worth since we don't feel it's good enough to be a new major release.

But we do not have a major release like that anymore, all releases are equally major - or equally minor ;) - and therefore let's find an algorithmic way to define this. If you have another easy algorithm, I'd like to hear it even if voting has already started...

Arguably, I did say maybe it's a semantic difference. ;-) If we look backwards, what distinguished 10.0 from 9.3? Or the last of the 8.x releases from 9.0? That might inform the conversation a bit more (I wasn't around the project in the 8.x-9.0 releases, and only on the periphery in the 9.3-

10.0 releases, so I don't know the answer to that question personally).

Jim -- Jim Henderson Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On 3/16/11 2:45 AM, Per Jessen wrote:

Jim Henderson wrote:

...

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 21:07:55 +0100, Andreas Jaeger wrote:

...

...

IOW, I think the discussion we're having at this stage is the wrong one. I don't think so, we're discussing each and every time when to go to 12.0 and find no solution for it. Instead we make our distribution worth since we don't feel it's good enough to be a new major release.

But we do not have a major release like that anymore, all releases are equally major - or equally minor ;) - and therefore let's find an algorithmic way to define this. If you have another easy algorithm, I'd like to hear it even if voting has already started... Arguably, I did say maybe it's a semantic difference. ;-)

If we look backwards, what distinguished 10.0 from 9.3? Or the last of the 8.x releases from 9.0? I think 7 to 8 meant we stopped building for i486. I think that was also the change from kernel 2.4 to 2.6. We also added YaST2 (the GUI vs the curses interface) at some point, although I don't remember when. Somewhere between 8 and 10 we dropped the publishing of CD and went DVD-only.

My first SuSE install was 8.3. I think it was still on the 2.4 kernel, but it did have YaST2. IIRC 2.6 kernel came along in 9.x or 10.x. Jim F -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

Jim Henderson wrote:

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 11:29:34 -0400, Chuck Payne wrote:

...

Me too, though I wish we just keep numbering, it is a part of name, like me change my last name from Payne to Smith.

Same here, I don't see a compelling reason to change, maybe just a compelling reason to define what constitutes a major version number increase.

One compelling reason to change is that our current numbering scheme doesn't match what we do - i.e. we have no major.minor release scheme. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (10.4°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

Jim Henderson wrote:

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 20:02:13 +0100, Per Jessen wrote:

...

Jim Henderson wrote:

...

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 11:29:34 -0400, Chuck Payne wrote:

...

Me too, though I wish we just keep numbering, it is a part of name, like me change my last name from Payne to Smith.

Same here, I don't see a compelling reason to change, maybe just a compelling reason to define what constitutes a major version number increase.

One compelling reason to change is that our current numbering scheme doesn't match what we do - i.e. we have no major.minor release scheme.

One might argue that we have a scheme, we don't have something that differentiates between major and minor releases. ie, we have a scheme (major.minor), but it lacks definitions of what constitute a major or minor release.

But that might just be semantics. :-)

Important nonetheless. Andreas started out by saying it quite clearly "openSUSE does not have a major and minor numbering, even if it seems so. There is right now no difference in any way between what we would do for openSUSE 11.4 or 12.0". To me, that is a significant discrepancy that we have to fix, and there are two ways of doing that: 1) introduce planning of major releases of openSUSE. 2) stop using major.minor version numbers of openSUSE. I have sofar been advocating 1), but as the powers that be do not seem overly inclined to taking that path, 2) is the alternative. I would much prefer "openSUSE 27" with no implied meaning over "openSUSE 13.4" with an implied ".4" meaning of no value. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (9.8°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On Tuesday, March 15, 2011 20:43:02 Chuck Payne wrote:

I don't. I really wish we drop this one waste of time and keep the name as it is.

You haven't seen the discussion about 11.5 vs. 12.0 on the opensuse-factory list, have you? That's the trigger for all of this. That kind of waste of time happens after every release - and therefore let's find a proper solution. 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 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 20:37:23 +0100, Per Jessen wrote:

Jim Henderson wrote:

...

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 20:02:13 +0100, Per Jessen wrote:

...

Jim Henderson wrote:

...

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 11:29:34 -0400, Chuck Payne wrote:

...

Me too, though I wish we just keep numbering, it is a part of name, like me change my last name from Payne to Smith.

Same here, I don't see a compelling reason to change, maybe just a compelling reason to define what constitutes a major version number increase.

One compelling reason to change is that our current numbering scheme doesn't match what we do - i.e. we have no major.minor release scheme.

One might argue that we have a scheme, we don't have something that differentiates between major and minor releases. ie, we have a scheme (major.minor), but it lacks definitions of what constitute a major or minor release.

But that might just be semantics. :-)

Important nonetheless.

Andreas started out by saying it quite clearly "openSUSE does not have a major and minor numbering, even if it seems so. There is right now no difference in any way between what we would do for openSUSE 11.4 or 12.0".

Fair point.

To me, that is a significant discrepancy that we have to fix, and there are two ways of doing that:

1) introduce planning of major releases of openSUSE. 2) stop using major.minor version numbers of openSUSE.

I have sofar been advocating 1), but as the powers that be do not seem overly inclined to taking that path, 2) is the alternative. I would much prefer "openSUSE 27" with no implied meaning over "openSUSE 13.4" with an implied ".4" meaning of no value.

Arguably, though, there'd be no difference between 27 and 28, why not go from 20 to 30? When it comes down to it, release versioning is more of a marketing exercise than it is a project management/product management exercise (versioning is important to identify changes in SVN, for example, but those revision numbers only have meaning in that they are a measure of timed events - commits - that show a progression). So in your example, the difference really is that the decimal point is in the "wrong" place. But maybe more logically, 12.0 is the release that comes after 11.9 (mathematically, that's certainly true - versioning systems that insist on 11.10 being > 11.9 and 11.1 != 11.10 notwithstanding - I've always considered that to be a special kind of nonsense personally, though I understand why it exists). Since major.minor in marketing terms implies small changes in each ".minor" increase and large changes for each 'major' digit increase, that does become a marketing discussion. So from the standpoint of a marketing discussion, I agree, major.minor doesn't make much sense unless the user can actually discern the meaning of a particular change in version number. Otherwise it's arbitrary. Jim -- Jim Henderson Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On Wed, 2011-03-16 at 08:50 +1100, Helen South wrote:

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:

...

...

1) introduce planning of major releases of openSUSE. 2) stop using major.minor version numbers of openSUSE.

I have sofar been advocating 1), but as the powers that be do not seem overly inclined to taking that path, 2) is the alternative. I would much prefer "openSUSE 27" with no implied meaning over "openSUSE 13.4" with an implied ".4" meaning of no value.

Arguably, though, there'd be no difference between 27 and 28, why not go from 20 to 30?

When it comes down to it, release versioning is more of a marketing exercise than it is a project management/product management exercise (versioning is important to identify changes in SVN, for example, but those revision numbers only have meaning in that they are a measure of timed events - commits - that show a progression).

<snip for brevity>

...

So from the standpoint of a marketing discussion, I agree, major.minor doesn't make much sense unless the user can actually discern the meaning of a particular change in version number. Otherwise it's arbitrary.

Jim --

One of my issues with major/minor is that we then have the pressure to conform to Major/Minor. The progression must be followed, but what if upstream have no major changes and nothing much is happening with the kernel?

What constitutes 'major'? Is it seen as partisan to mark a significant development in one desktop or another? Can one major follow another immediately if some major development occurs?

My impression is that often change is a gradual, almost organic process with a lot outside of our control. The 11.4 to 12 step could be regarded as a major/minor, or it could simply be an abbreviated incremental process. I gather it is seen somewhat as a step to 'major' but it concerns me that this means that to go to 12, we are actively looking for reasons to make it major (without stepping on KDE toes over Gnome SHELL, for instance).

I worry about painting ourselves into a corner by formalizing the major/minor idea. Some sort of flexibility would need to be built in, possibly to the release schedule to allow for desktop or kernel delays.

Not necessarily negatives but just a couple of issues that would need to be addressed if we went that way.

I agree somewhat with Chuck; this is something that should probably resolved quite quickly.

cheers,

Helen

From a marketing/press standpoint, there's definitely an implied "major/minor" with our current versioning standard. It's been easy and understandable for us that there is no major/minor, but that's cuz we're familiar and know how it works. Back when I went from 10.3 to 11 (before I truly understood the process) I really thought 11 was a major release and as an end user I was disappointed to not see anything so drastically different.

The same problem goes for press reviews. Unless they take the time to understand that 11.3 is a new version rather than an updated version, they seem less inclined to write about us. This has always been a problem and we see a declining of new downloads with each "minor" release. Every new release needs to have awesome noise and not "here's the latest patched openSUSE review." It's also misleading because people view .x as meaning "a fixed version of the major release." And it sets their expectations when they try it when they're focused on some bad experience they might have had with a "major" release. We want each new release to be viewed objectively by all parties, not with baggage. Whatever our new versioning scheme will be, it needs to be clear right out of the gate what it means, or we will forever be struggling with the added effort of making clear in our marketing efforts that this is a *NEW* release, not a *patched* release. It adds overhead for us to dispel misperceptions and myths when we can focus more energy on "Hey... we're putting out yet another awesome release, folks!" Bryen M Yunashko openSUSE Marketing Team -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 8:59 AM, Bryen M Yunashko wrote:

From a marketing/press standpoint, there's definitely an implied "major/minor" with our current versioning standard.

I hadn't realized that this was so much the case, but on reflection it makes a lot of sense, particularly in light of your following comments

The same problem goes for press reviews.  Unless they take the time to understand that 11.3 is a new version rather than an updated version, they seem less inclined to write about us.

 We want each new release to be viewed objectively by

all parties, not with baggage. <snip>

 It adds overhead for us to

dispel misperceptions and myths

This is valid. Word counts are increasingly short, and readers are increasingly impatient. The version number is part of the distribution name and does need to be clear and relevant. On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 8:59 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:

It's pretty rare for there to be a major change (such as the change in look from KDE 3.5 to 4.0 or from GNOME 2 to GNOME 3 - both of which IMHO are major changes that immediately come to mind) within the product itself.

The evolutionary nature of the Linux platform itself does tend to raise the kinds of questions that have been raised (now repeatedly) about how to version the openSUSE product. That's one strong argument for not continuing the current scheme, because every release ends up with a discussion around "so what version will we be releasing next?".

That's also a big point in favour of using a YYYY-MM or YYYY-XX style convention rather than a sequential convention.

<snip>

This is one case where I think tradition probably is not a very strong argument - "we've always done it this way" isn't a good enough reason if it means we have this kind of discussion every release cycle.

Jim

Agreed, and I think now is a good time to establish clear naming and branding across the distribution. I hadn't been particularly keen on the year-numbering system until I'd read your comments. I still have a few reservations (mainly because of SEO) but otherwise, this approach does seem the least arbitrary while remaining relatively uncluttered. Thanks for your input; I know sometimes this kind of discussion is seen as superfluous ('lets just vote!') - but I value the opportunity to look at all angles of the issue and make a properly considered decision. cheers Helen -- IRC: helen_au helen.south@opensuse.org helensouth.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On Tue, 2011-03-15 at 21:59 +0000, Jim Henderson wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 08:50:19 +1100, Helen South wrote:

...

One of my issues with major/minor is that we then have the pressure to conform to Major/Minor. The progression must be followed, but what if upstream have no major changes and nothing much is happening with the kernel?

Well, I think part of this comes from the underlying idea that the version has to be bumed by a 'major' increment every 'x' amount of time. Hence why that decision (on product version) IMHO is more of a marketing discussion than a technological discussion.

...

What constitutes 'major'? Is it seen as partisan to mark a significant development in one desktop or another? Can one major follow another immediately if some major development occurs?

Indeed, these are fair questions.

...

My impression is that often change is a gradual, almost organic process with a lot outside of our control. The 11.4 to 12 step could be regarded as a major/minor, or it could simply be an abbreviated incremental process. I gather it is seen somewhat as a step to 'major' but it concerns me that this means that to go to 12, we are actively looking for reasons to make it major (without stepping on KDE toes over Gnome SHELL, for instance).

In my formal role at Novell, I've had this discussion internally (I work in the training department on testing & certification - the discussion has been in the context of 'internal' to my small team, not with the SLE team itself) with regards to SLE, and ultimately it seems that Linux in and of itself is an evolutionary platform.

It's pretty rare for there to be a major change (such as the change in look from KDE 3.5 to 4.0 or from GNOME 2 to GNOME 3 - both of which IMHO are major changes that immediately come to mind) within the product itself.

The evolutionary nature of the Linux platform itself does tend to raise the kinds of questions that have been raised (now repeatedly) about how to version the openSUSE product. That's one strong argument for not continuing the current scheme, because every release ends up with a discussion around "so what version will we be releasing next?".

That's also a big point in favour of using a YYYY-MM or YYYY-XX style convention rather than a sequential convention.

I think you hit it on the nose as to precisely why our major:minor scheme doesn't work anymore (or did it ever?) It totally does not reflect the evolutionary nature of FOSS. We should not be using a scheme that misleads those who are unintiated in our scheme, which the present format does (albeit unintentionally.)

<SNIP>.

One might even argue it should have been decided some time ago, but yes, it is something that certainly needs to be worked out before the next release.

This is one case where I think tradition probably is not a very strong argument - "we've always done it this way" isn't a good enough reason if it means we have this kind of discussion every release cycle.

I don't think its a strong argument for two reasons: 1) for the reasons you just stated and 2) because I don't believe that our scheme necessarily was some 'endearing' quality of openSUSE that made it beloved. It just simply was. When did we ever go around saying "openSUSE is great because we say 'X.Y ? It simply isn't a defining characteristic of openSUSE and even so, we'll always say openSUSE (version), so people who don't use openSUSE are still going to know we're talking about openSUSE. So, let's focus on creating a good scheme that is highly explanatory to the uninitiated without them having to read somewhere or be told by someone "this versioning means...." Bryen

Jim -- Jim Henderson Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits

-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 12:56, Jim Henderson wrote:

Same here, I don't see a compelling reason to change, maybe just a compelling reason to define what constitutes a major version number increase.

Jim

I agree. But why isn't 11.4 rolled to 12.0? I think that sort of numbering is pointless for that just do sequential numbering. -- Med Vennlig Hilsen, A. Helge Joakimsen -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011, Chuck Payne wrote:

Me too, though I wish we just keep numbering, it is a part of name, like me change my last name from Payne to Smith.

That would be the equivalent of changing openSUSE to Greenmachine. ;-) What we are discussing here is how to call (y)our beloved children. 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

On Tuesday, March 15, 2011 15:45:59 Bruno Friedmann wrote:

On 03/15/2011 12:15 PM, Andreas Jaeger wrote:

...

Following up the discussions on what scheme to use for the openSUSE version, I've created a survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/ZYC5PYZ

This is the first iteration. Coolo and myself discussed to use a second survey with the group of winners on connect.opensuse.org

Andreas

Andreas I think a typo exist in The following data based options are under consideration: -> following date based

Thanks, fixed, 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 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On Tuesday, March 15, 2011 09:03:04 PM Carlos E. R. wrote:

On 2011-03-15 16:23, Andreas Jaeger wrote:

...

...

Andreas I think a typo exist in The following data based options are under consideration: -> following date based

Thanks, fixed,

Not fixed, I'm still seeing "data":

Argh, then I might not be able to change it without restarting the poll which we don't want. 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 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On Tuesday, March 15, 2011 04:23:09 PM Andreas Jaeger wrote:

On Tuesday, March 15, 2011 04:53:32 PM Cornelius Schumacher wrote:

...

On Tuesday 15 March 2011 12:15:56 Andreas Jaeger wrote:

...

Following up the discussions on what scheme to use for the openSUSE version, I've created a survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/ZYC5PYZ

The survey is a bit limiting. I'm not able to express my preferences there. E.g. I prefer a consecutive scheme over a date based one, but I would rather have a good date based one than a bad consecutive one. I also like the traditional scheme, but I don't like the cut-off for the minor version number.

Maybe it would be better to just have one list of possible schemes, and an additional text field for comments or alternative ideas.

I asked already for alternative ideas and enhanced it. If you have a good idea that is completely different, please bring it up.

We will do a second voting.

Arranging the choices would be a good idea. But I doubt that the poll module of connect.opensuse.org where we want to do this, is able to do this - and I'm not sure about surveymonkey either,

Andreas

I am not sure you read my mail a few days ago because my ISP firewall problems. I will summarize it. A.What people need to know about a release? 1.-Date it was released: 1.1. Year (we need only 2 digits to make this reference) 1.2 .Month (we need only 2 digits to make this reference too) B. What people need to know about a release or how to differentiate a version from other the same year were released ? 2-Date it was released 2.1. Month (we need to make reference what month or a numbering sequence to indicate there is one release first and another after. C.What people need to know about a release supported ? 3.-Date ends of support for security, patches updates 3.1. Year (it is not the case or it could be) 3.2. Month (everybody needs to know when is the end of life for oS Product) Conclusion: YY.MM-mm YY= two digits for the year. i.e. 2012=12 MM= two digits for the month. i.e. November=11 mm=romanized small letter for the month it ends for security updates support. i.e. May=v Said so the next release numbering version would be openSUSE 11.11-v -- Ricardo Chung | openSUSE Linux Ambassador Panama openSUSE 11.4 | KDE 4.6.00 release 6 | Mesa 3D-Nouveau Gallium 7.10 video drivers -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

Op 16-03-11 09:30, Andreas Jaeger schreef:

On Tuesday, March 15, 2011 23:50:11 Ricardo Chung wrote:

...

...

On Tuesday, March 15, 2011 04:53:32 PM Cornelius Schumacher wrote:

...

...

Following up the discussions on what scheme to use for the openSUSE version, I've created a survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/ZYC5PYZ The survey is a bit limiting. I'm not able to express my preferences

On Tuesday 15 March 2011 12:15:56 Andreas Jaeger wrote: there. E.g. I prefer a consecutive scheme over a date based one, but I would rather have a good date based one than a bad consecutive one. I also like the traditional scheme, but I don't like the cut-off for the minor version number.

Maybe it would be better to just have one list of possible schemes, and an additional text field for comments or alternative ideas. I asked already for alternative ideas and enhanced it. If you have a good idea that is completely different, please bring it up.

We will do a second voting.

Arranging the choices would be a good idea. But I doubt that the poll module of connect.opensuse.org where we want to do this, is able to do this - and I'm not sure about surveymonkey either,

Andreas I am not sure you read my mail a few days ago because my ISP firewall

On Tuesday, March 15, 2011 04:23:09 PM Andreas Jaeger wrote: problems.

I will summarize it. A.What people need to know about a release? 1.-Date it was released: 1.1. Year (we need only 2 digits to make this reference) 1.2 .Month (we need only 2 digits to make this reference too)

B. What people need to know about a release or how to differentiate a version from other the same year were released ? 2-Date it was released 2.1. Month (we need to make reference what month or a numbering sequence to indicate there is one release first and another after.

C.What people need to know about a release supported ? 3.-Date ends of support for security, patches updates 3.1. Year (it is not the case or it could be) 3.2. Month (everybody needs to know when is the end of life for oS Product)

Conclusion:

YY.MM-mm

YY= two digits for the year. i.e. 2012=12 MM= two digits for the month. i.e. November=11 mm=romanized small letter for the month it ends for security updates support. i.e. May=v

Said so the next release numbering version would be openSUSE 11.11-v Sorry, somehow I missed this. This is really a new scheme but I find it quite complicated to explain.

Andreas it is not complicated. The support date for a release cycle is added to the buildtime. But if the supporttime is 16 months, there is easy counting when year and month are used. If main release 12 would start in 2012, many things would be much easier.

-- Enjoy your time around, Oddball (M9.) (Now or never...) OS: Linux 2.6.37.1-1.2-desktop x86_64 Huidige gebruiker: oddball@AMD64x2sfn1 Systeem: openSUSE 11.4 (x86_64) KDE: 4.6.00 (4.6.0) "release 6" -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On Saturday, March 19, 2011 07:38:13 PM Gerald Pfeifer wrote:

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011, Ricardo Chung wrote:

...

Conclusion:

YY.MM-mm

YY= two digits for the year. i.e. 2012=12 MM= two digits for the month. i.e. November=11 mm=romanized small letter for the month it ends for security updates support. i.e. May=v

How do you suggest to handle the case where the duration of security updates changes past release?

Gerald

Gerald, Thank you for your question. I am Not completely sure I understood your question but here is my answer to what I undestood. Hope is the right interpretation and a good answer for your question. Well, if we know before hand the duration of security updates we can stick to above formula YY.MM-mm. If we are going to make an extended security updates for a past release (i.e.11.1 Evergreen) and make a downloadable iso we should add something like this: YY.MM.xTmm . (i.e. 11.1.xTviii) Where "xT" would mean "extended support" and romanized lower case ( August=viii) would be the month the extended security updates will end. We would have all important information available at the sight. Best, -- Ricardo Chung | openSUSE Linux Ambassador Panama openSUSE 11.4 | KDE 4.6.00 release 6 | Mesa 3D-Nouveau Gallium 7.10 video drivers -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

If we are going to make an extended security updates for a past release (i.e.11.1 Evergreen) and make a downloadable iso we should add something like this: YY.MM.xTmm . (i.e. 11.1.xTviii) Where "xT" would mean "extended support" and romanized lower case ( August=viii) would be the month the extended security updates will end. We would have all important information available at the sight.

Best, -- Ricardo Chung | openSUSE Linux  Ambassador Panama

While I see what you're trying to achieve with this system, the extended support information in the number seems a little bit superfluous. And having to write out openSUSE 12.09.xTviii all the time would be irritating, and it looks really messy. And which August is that referring to? And how often do I really need to know that about it? You could maybe use 12.09x with an x indicated extended support and the user could easily find the end date if they need to know it. Helen -- IRC: helen_au helen.south@opensuse.org helensouth.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

I tend to think *keep it simple*. In other words, no octals ;-) My proposal was not included in the survey because it is not too far from what we are used to, and probably it does not fit in the (unexplained) desire of changing numbering. Anyway, I report it here, just in case someone likes it :-) The idea is simple: openSUSE is not only a community distribution. It is used in many academic environments, and also workplaces. Its connection, even if not direct with SLE has been useful for these users, since they rely also on commercial applications, which are typically certified for SLE. This provides an indication, in general, of what openSUSE will probably support those applications too, and I think it should not be lost. As a consequence, my proposal was the following. Let's assume SLE 12. Then we call the release of openSUSE which is the base for SLE 12, openSUSE 12.0. And then we proceed as follows: SLE 12 -> openSUSE 12.0 openSUSE 12.1 openSUSE 12.2 openSUSE 12.3 openSUSE 12.4 openSUSE 12.5 ... SLE 12 -> openSUSE 13.0 openSUSE 13.1 openSUSE 13.2 and so on. I know many do not like the connection with SLE, but honestly I see it as an advantage more than as a problem. -- Alberto Passalacqua -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

2011/3/21 jdd :

Le 21/03/2011 09:35, Alberto Passalacqua a écrit :

...

I know many do not like the connection with SLE, but honestly I see it as an advantage more than as a problem.

I have no problem with this, but we have no action on the SLES/SLED commercial naming, and it was saifd here that there is now no connection betwenn openSUSE and SLES/SLED (naming wise)

There is no need to have action on SLE releases at all to implement the numbering I suggested. It has been done for years with the x.1 releases, and the calendar of SLE releases and openSUSE releases is well known in advance to the developers. Best, A. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org