On 17 July 2015 at 22:02, Jay
Yep. But "The Up-to-date Reliability Release" (URR) puts more emphasis on being "current" which includes hardware-support. That's why for URR to work the latest LTS-kernel would be essential.
Being more current would set Leap apart from Debian, Centos and other LTS-"stability"-releases.
Richard Brown's idea of "Best of both worlds" puts more emphasis on "community-innovations" - if I understand him correctly. And this might work without the LTS-kernel.
First, I want to share some thoughts about the Kernel as this topic keeps on coming up :) While it looks certain that Leap will have the 4.1 LTS Kernel because of the very valid reasons raised by everyone on these lists, I don't think it's safe to assume that every minor release of Leap will always jump to the latest LTS Kernel each time. The current prediction is that we'll be doing a Leap release once per year (though that is broadly dependant on SUSE doing the same for SLE 12 service packs, which we understand is the intention) If you look at https://www.kernel.org/category/releases.html you'll see that a new Kernel is declared as an LTS some where between once every 6-13 months So, while I think we COULD probably move kernel every year (if we're lucky with LTS kernel announcements), I don't think we necessarily SHOULD I think we should make a sensible evaluation for each minor release what makes sense for us, as maintainers and users. Starting to build Leap with the 3.12 Kernel from 2013 in 2015 (and needing to be maintained until at least the end of '2016' which is not even guaranteed according to this published list) is clearly not the right decision for us But sticking with the 4.1 kernel until the end of 2017 might be the right decision when we come around to making it 1 year from now. And so, to the point at hand, what makes Leap unique, is exactly factors like that We're not building a CentOS where the logical choice is to stick on the Kernel used in RHEL, no ifs, no buts But, nor are we building an Fedora/old-style openSUSE where every release will always automatically have the latest kernel without considering whether the choice is a worthwhile effort in terms of risk, stability & benefits to users. That's the kind of thing I mean by the "best of both worlds", we can make something that fills a unique role in the Linux ecosystem, a distribution that provides both great stability, and great features.
But without that, I agree with jdd here - that if you specify just "The best of both worlds", you might make people think that you were talking about, for example, the Linux and Windows worlds coming together.
Jim
That's up to Richard to comment on.
But perhaps we should just say
"Leap 42.1 - The Best of ALL Worlds!" ;)
"The Best of Both Worlds" refers to the Enterprise-provided and Community-provided sources which we build Leap I don't see how that could possibly be construed to include Windows, but if it did, then "The Best of All Worlds" is at least 33% worse as it would also include OS X ;) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org