On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Henne Vogelsang
Hey,
On 14.06.2012 13:30, Jos Poortvliet wrote:
On Thursday 14 June 2012 12:52:49 todd rme wrote:
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Stephan Kulow
wrote: 3. As working more strictly will require more time, I would like to either ditch release schedules all together or release only once a year and then rebase Tumbleweed - as already discussed in the RC1 thread.
What if we do it the other way around? We have Tumbleweed as the "official" openSUSE version
So, in a sense, Factory becomes a unstable repo for Tumbleweed and we release stabilized snapshots of Tumbleweed. And we maintain those, then.
Whats the difference to what we do today?
Factory is unstable for openSUSE and we release stabilized snapshots of openSUSE. And we maintain those, then.
Essentially it's replacing one name (openSUSE) with another name (Tumbleweed) for the same thing (stabilized Factory) :D
The difference is that the rolling distribution would be expected to be stable while Factory is not. To put it in terms of our current structure, openSUSE released would be pulled from Tumbleweed rather than Factory. The point of the releases is that it would have fixed package versions, it would get bugfix-only improvements for a certain period of time. It would also have branding changes, and would provide an opportunity to make more core changes that are difficult under the rolling-release model. -Todd -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org