Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (3337 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse] SUSE version naming
On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 04:46:08PM +0200, Joop Boonen wrote:
> I think it's the numbering is very logical. Only for 10.x it was a bit out
> of tune.
>
> X.0 is the pre new kernel version.
> 8.0 was pre 2.4 kernel (2.4 was test kernel) 8.1 was 2.4 kernel
> 9.0 was pre 2.6 kernel (2.6 was test kernel) 9.1 was 2.6 kernel

Please do not toppost.
It is incorrect. 8.0 was 2.4.18 and 7.3 was 2.4.9., 7.1 was 2.2 as was 6.4
Then 10.0 should have been called 8.3 or even lower as 4.3
It also is very illogical. 0 should never be the last, it should be the
first.
<snip>

> I personally prefer numbers as the dat or some wierd name doesn't mean
> anything to me. x.1 id newer than x.0. That is very clear. Look the latest
> version up on the internet.

I also would not like a name. Or at least not ONLY a name. It should be
someting that identifies the date.

> I hope SuSE will never move to NT, 2000, XP, Vista etc. Instead of 4.0,
> 4.1, 5 and 5.1?

2000 is OK as a name if you publish it in 2000 and it is the only version
coming out that year.

> (May be an option might be an odd and even sceam like with the kernel, odd
> is test/unstable even is stable?)

That is not the case anymore.

Oh! Another way of numbering could be using the first few digits of the
Unix time. :-) Just see wich ones are needed to determine the month or
period of the month and have the rest asued to be filled with 0.

houghi
--
Nutze die Zeit. Sie ist das Kostbarste, was wir haben, denn es
ist unwiederbringliche Lebenszeit. Leben ist aber mehr als Werk
und Arbeit, und das Sein wichtiger als das Tun - Johannes Müller-Elmau

< Previous Next >
Follow Ups
References