Hi! This has been discussed somehow but without any conclusion. Current versioning scheme is confusing and does not make sense (now that we are not syncing releases with SLE). If we are willing to change this we should come up with some proposals and let the community decide. Ideas? I came up with this one: name the next release openSUSE 12 (not 12.0) and continue normally (13, 14). Also make the codenames (present in /etc/issue atm) more prominent and also market them (like openSUSE 12 Moss). -- Best Regards / S pozdravom, Pavol RUSNAK SUSE LINUX, s.r.o openSUSE Boosters Team Lihovarska 1060/12 PGP 0xA6917144 19000 Praha 9 prusnak[at]opensuse.org Czech Republic -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-boosters+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-boosters+help@opensuse.org
Hey, Le mercredi 16 juin 2010, à 14:50 +0200, Pavol Rusnak a écrit :
Hi!
This has been discussed somehow but without any conclusion. Current versioning scheme is confusing and does not make sense (now that we are not syncing releases with SLE). If we are willing to change this we should come up with some proposals and let the community decide. Ideas?
I came up with this one: name the next release openSUSE 12 (not 12.0) and continue normally (13, 14).
Yeah, that's probably the simplest solution. There are a few other options I was considering: + consider that 11.3 is 3, and continue with 4, 5, 6, etc. The main issue here is that's it somehow confusing for old-timers. + start from scratch with 1, but with a letter. Say we use G for Green, the next release could be G1, then G2. + we can also try to use a versioning scheme based on dates, but we'd be doing what Mandriva or Ubuntu are doing.
Also make the codenames (present in /etc/issue atm) more prominent and also market them (like openSUSE 12 Moss).
Ah, I was not aware we've started using the codenames. I like that. May I suggest we choose them in alphabetical order starting with the next one (from A to Z): it'll be useful to help know the order when comparing two names (especially if we'll market them -- which I agree we should). I vote for Asparagus for the next codename :-) Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-boosters+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-boosters+help@opensuse.org
Please continue discussion only here, on boosters ML, I put board to CC so they could react there ... On 06/16/2010 03:04 PM, Vincent Untz wrote:
+ consider that 11.3 is 3, and continue with 4, 5, 6, etc. The main issue here is that's it somehow confusing for old-timers.
That will cause more confusion in stuff like %suse_version etc.
+ start from scratch with 1, but with a letter. Say we use G for Green, the next release could be G1, then G2.
Hm, better, but still we would need to invent scheme for %suse_version
+ we can also try to use a versioning scheme based on dates, but we'd be doing what Mandriva or Ubuntu are doing.
-- Best Regards / S pozdravom, Pavol RUSNAK SUSE LINUX, s.r.o openSUSE Boosters Team Lihovarska 1060/12 PGP 0xA6917144 19000 Praha 9 prusnak[at]opensuse.org Czech Republic -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-boosters+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-boosters+help@opensuse.org
Moin, On Wednesday 16 June 2010 15:04:50 Vincent Untz wrote:
Hey,
Le mercredi 16 juin 2010, à 14:50 +0200, Pavol Rusnak a écrit :
Hi!
This has been discussed somehow but without any conclusion. Current versioning scheme is confusing and does not make sense (now that we are not syncing releases with SLE). If we are willing to change this we should come up with some proposals and let the community decide. Ideas? Before discussing how it should be changed we should know why we should change and what benefits we do have with the change. Just changing to change an old habit I fear is not worth it.
Best M
I came up with this one: name the next release openSUSE 12 (not 12.0) and continue normally (13, 14).
Yeah, that's probably the simplest solution. There are a few other options I was considering:
+ consider that 11.3 is 3, and continue with 4, 5, 6, etc. The main issue here is that's it somehow confusing for old-timers.
+ start from scratch with 1, but with a letter. Say we use G for Green, the next release could be G1, then G2.
+ we can also try to use a versioning scheme based on dates, but we'd be doing what Mandriva or Ubuntu are doing.
Also make the codenames (present in /etc/issue atm) more prominent and also market them (like openSUSE 12 Moss).
Ah, I was not aware we've started using the codenames. I like that. May I suggest we choose them in alphabetical order starting with the next one (from A to Z): it'll be useful to help know the order when comparing two names (especially if we'll market them -- which I agree we should).
I vote for Asparagus for the next codename :-)
Vincent
-- Michael Löffler, Product Management SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - Nürnberg - AG Nürnberg - HRB 16746 - GF: Markus Rex -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-boosters+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-boosters+help@opensuse.org
Le mercredi 16 juin 2010, à 15:27 +0200, Michael Loeffler a écrit :
Moin, On Wednesday 16 June 2010 15:04:50 Vincent Untz wrote:
Hey,
Le mercredi 16 juin 2010, à 14:50 +0200, Pavol Rusnak a écrit :
Hi!
This has been discussed somehow but without any conclusion. Current versioning scheme is confusing and does not make sense (now that we are not syncing releases with SLE). If we are willing to change this we should come up with some proposals and let the community decide. Ideas? Before discussing how it should be changed we should know why we should change and what benefits we do have with the change. Just changing to change an old habit I fear is not worth it.
First, there's absolutely no technical reason to change this. It's really about marketing and sending a signal to various audiences (our community, our users, media, for example). Several things I can think of: + breaks the impression that openSUSE is made to allow SLE to exist (SLE11 based on 11.1, eg). + the current versioning scheme makes sense to only a few people. I have no idea why it makes sense. For example, the next version should apparently be 12.0. For most users, switching from 11.x to 12.0 means that we add tons of improvements that justify this change. That's what I call high expectations that have no reason to exist. + with the openSUSE strategy we'll have, we can do some new promotion. And updating the versioning scheme sends a clear signal that something changed, which helps promoting the strategy. Yes, that sounds stupid; it's marketing :-) Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-boosters+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-boosters+help@opensuse.org
Aloha! On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 14:50 +0200, Pavol Rusnak wrote:
Hi!
This has been discussed somehow but without any conclusion. Current versioning scheme is confusing and does not make sense (now that we are not syncing releases with SLE). If we are willing to change this we should come up with some proposals and let the community decide. Ideas?
Sorry to sound ignorant, but could you advise as to where it was discussed? I'm not looking at picking a fight or anything - if it was internally/behind closed doors so to speak then fine, I'm just curious :-) Is there any reason we are trying to distance ourselves from SLE? If anything we need to bring both closer together. Almost emulating the way Ubuntu do their LTS releases. It is working very well for them, and is growing not only their consumer users, but also their enterprise users. But the big win for them is they have a single community. This is something we don't have, and we do actually need it.
I came up with this one: name the next release openSUSE 12 (not 12.0) and continue normally (13, 14). Also make the codenames (present in /etc/issue atm) more prominent and also market them (like openSUSE 12 Moss).
Just using full digits is OK, but we'll just be copying Fedora. RedHat used to have a similar scheme to us, and then changed it when they pushed Fedora out the door. Using dates is just mimicking other distros too. Believe it or not, our versioning scheme is actually unique and as such is a marketing tool :) I'm not saying it is perfect, maybe we need to actually change how we use it. What I mean by that is every even point release so .0 .2 we try and have as much shiny in there as possible, and every odd point release we concentrate on stability? Regards, Andy -- Andrew Wafaa IRC: FunkyPenguin. GPG: 0x3A36312F openSUSE: Get It, Discover It, Create It at http://www.opensuse.org
On Wednesday 16 June 2010 14:50:50 Pavol Rusnak wrote:
Hi!
This has been discussed somehow but without any conclusion. Current versioning scheme is confusing and does not make sense (now that we are not syncing releases with SLE). If we are willing to change this we should come up with some proposals and let the community decide. Ideas?
I came up with this one: name the next release openSUSE 12 (not 12.0) and continue normally (13, 14). Also make the codenames (present in /etc/issue atm) more prominent and also market them (like openSUSE 12 Moss).
This is something that should be discussed IMHO on the project mailing list, please move the discussion there. Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, Program Manager openSUSE, aj@{novell.com,opensuse.org} Twitter: jaegerandi | Identica: jaegerandi SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
On 06/16/2010 04:37 PM, Andrew Wafaa wrote:
Sorry to sound ignorant, but could you advise as to where it was discussed? I'm not looking at picking a fight or anything - if it was internally/behind closed doors so to speak then fine, I'm just curious :-)
I read some discussion on -factory or -project ML. -- Best Regards / S pozdravom, Pavol RUSNAK SUSE LINUX, s.r.o openSUSE Boosters Team Lihovarska 1060/12 PGP 0xA6917144 19000 Praha 9 prusnak[at]opensuse.org Czech Republic -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-boosters+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-boosters+help@opensuse.org
Hi, On 16.06.2010 16:40, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
This is something that should be discussed IMHO on the project mailing list, please move the discussion there.
Its totally okay to come up with a nice scheme here and propose it then to the project. This discussion is about the proposal, not about the implementation or the decision :) Henne -- Henne Vogelsang, openSUSE. Everybody has a plan, until they get hit. - Mike Tyson -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-boosters+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-boosters+help@opensuse.org
On Wednesday 16 June 2010 16:57:42 Henne Vogelsang wrote:
Hi,
On 16.06.2010 16:40, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
This is something that should be discussed IMHO on the project mailing list, please move the discussion there.
Its totally okay to come up with a nice scheme here and propose it then to the project. This discussion is about the proposal, not about the implementation or the decision :)
I think we should have relevant discussion in the proper forums and boosters is not the forum for this. The discussion here is already not only about the proposal but also the reasons for it. I don't see anything in this discussion that couldn't be discussed on project in the same form - so why not do it? Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, Program Manager openSUSE, aj@{novell.com,opensuse.org} Twitter: jaegerandi | Identica: jaegerandi SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
Hey, On 16.06.2010 17:18, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
On Wednesday 16 June 2010 16:57:42 Henne Vogelsang wrote:
On 16.06.2010 16:40, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
This is something that should be discussed IMHO on the project mailing list, please move the discussion there.
Its totally okay to come up with a nice scheme here and propose it then to the project. This discussion is about the proposal, not about the implementation or the decision :)
I think we should have relevant discussion in the proper forums and boosters is not the forum for this. The discussion here is already not only about the proposal but also the reasons for it.
I don't see anything in this discussion that couldn't be discussed on project in the same form - so why not do it?
Because if you discuss things without a proposal in a very large and vocal group you will not get to a result. You start with thinking it through, talking it through with your peers, formulate it and THEN you discuss it on -project :) Henne -- Henne Vogelsang, openSUSE. Everybody has a plan, until they get hit. - Mike Tyson -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-boosters+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-boosters+help@opensuse.org
On Wednesday 16 June 2010 16:37:48 Andrew Wafaa wrote:
Just using full digits is OK, but we'll just be copying Fedora. RedHat used to have a similar scheme to us, and then changed it when they pushed Fedora out the door. Using dates is just mimicking other distros too. Believe it or not, our versioning scheme is actually unique and as such is a marketing tool :)
You have my full agreement. The arbitrary x.y is part of the distribution's identity. I haven't seen any evidence that anyone has a problem with it.
I'm not saying it is perfect, maybe we need to actually change how we use it. What I mean by that is every even point release so .0 .2 we try and have as much shiny in there as possible, and every odd point release we concentrate on stability?
+1 Will -- Will Stephenson, KDE Developer, openSUSE Boosters Team SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - Nürnberg - AG Nürnberg - HRB 16746 - GF: Markus Rex -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-boosters+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-boosters+help@opensuse.org
On 06/17/2010 12:06 PM, Will Stephenson wrote:
You have my full agreement. The arbitrary x.y is part of the distribution's identity. I haven't seen any evidence that anyone has a problem with it.
Like Vincent mentioned, it's VERY confusing. For example, go to https://features.opensuse.org/query and you'll see 11.4 in Product(s) listbox. If we have this kind of confusion in tools maintained by us, multiply it by 100x and you'll get the idea how our community is confused. I agree with most of other positive points of the currently used scheme. Just a few secs ago I had one of the many similar IRC conversations: <ra100> prusnak: when will be systemd ready? <prusnak> it might make its way into 12.0 <ra100> what? after 11.4? :-( You get the idea ... -- Best Regards / S pozdravom, Pavol RUSNAK SUSE LINUX, s.r.o openSUSE Boosters Team Lihovarska 1060/12 PGP 0xA6917144 19000 Praha 9 prusnak[at]opensuse.org Czech Republic -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-boosters+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-boosters+help@opensuse.org
On 06/17/2010 02:39 PM, Pavol Rusnak wrote:
Just a few secs ago I had one of the many similar IRC conversations:
<ra100> prusnak: when will be systemd ready? <prusnak> it might make its way into 12.0 <ra100> what? after 11.4? :-(
Another story:
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [opensuse-project] Strategy d: Status Quo, and quantified so
From: Andreas Jaeger
participants (8)
-
Andreas Jaeger -
Andrew Wafaa -
Henne Vogelsang -
Michael Loeffler -
Pavol Rusnak -
Pavol Rusnak -
Vincent Untz -
Will Stephenson