On 17/11/15 23:47, Richard Brown wrote:
On 17 November 2015 at 12:55, Basil Chupin
wrote: On 17/11/15 22:35, jdd wrote:
Le 17/11/2015 12:26, Basil Chupin a écrit :
Not "unless 13.2 too will eventually become...." but make it "13.2 MUST become an Evergreen in the immediate future".
but people used alreay 13.1 in behalf of it becomming Evergreen...
jdd
I haven't used 13.1 for quite some time so you will need to educate me about this: what makes 13.1 special as against 13.2? Both have 32-bit versions, for example. What does 13.1 have which 13.2 doesn't and which would cause people many hassles by upgrading to 13.2? Are there major differences or is it only a matter of reluctance to upgrade simply because 13.1 has been given the title of 'Evergreen'? So, please educate me :-) .
BC 13.1 has individuals willing to maintain it as an Evergreen release. Their intention to do so was announced well in advance, and so they feel beholden to do as they promised, even though as Wolfgang has already explained, his intention is to support Evergreen 13.1 for no longer than the minimal period promised.
13.2 does not have people willing to maintain it as an Evergreen release, so it wont be an Evergreen release unless that changes.
That's what makes it special, people are going to be doing the work for 13.1 and not 13.2..
So, the only special thing about 13.1 is that people have said that they will keep 13.1 as an Evergreen. Then if those people maintaining 13.1 as an Evergreen decided that it was prudent to switch their efforts to keeping 13.2 rather than 13.1 as an Evergreen there are no obstacles to impede such a move, correct? BC -- Using openSUSE 13.2, KDE 4.14.9 & kernel 4.3.0-4 on a system with- AMD FX 8-core 3.6/4.2GHz processor 16GB PC14900/1866MHz Quad Channel RAM Gigabyte AMD3+ m/board; Gigabyte nVidia GTX660 GPU -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org