Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-project (328 mails)

["Rob OpenSuSE" <rob.opensuse.linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

2008/12/22 James Tremblay aka SLEducator <fxrsliberty@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Extra possible "win" - "long term
> support "could more easily be moved to x.3 releases citing the x.1\x.2
> as support levels for x.0. with the  bonus side effect of reducing
> update channel bandwidth. i.e. security only on x.0 then nothing unless
> x.1 is applied (This is nothing new to major software vendors, can't
> tell you how many times I've heard "we only support that product at
> x.1.2.3, please upgrade.") then x.3s could also be easily translated to
> SLEs. It seems a waste that SuSE built YaST with all this functionality
> to not let openSUSE benefit  from it's  heritage.

That would also have a nice consistent story for the version numbers.

If most of the destabilising and experimental stuff, came into an X.0
release, I don't think it's really viable to just have security fixes.

So actually it'd be better to say that the X.3 version is the
"stable", and have X.0, X.1 and X.2 getting updated for bug fixes, and
new package versions, with the difficulty of introducing new features
increasing greatly as the X.3 release approaches.

Most openSUSE users will probably track the newer code then, but those
who want to avoid the dislocation of the more developmental versions,
can stop at X.3 until they feel comfortable, installing X+1.2 for
example and then getting updates to X+1.3.

How if X.3 is basically the same as SLED/SLES avoid the problem of
internal competition, if it has LTS?

OTOH if X.3 is freely copiable and effectively evaluation, developers
would be encouraged to use it, and then later on their customers,
would be deploying SLED/SLES most likely?  An easy switch to get LTS,
or to subscribe to updates, when X.3 is past it's short term support,
might increase revenue.
-- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx