On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Andreas Jaeger <aj@novell.com> wrote:
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