You might want to check the latest release engineering meeting minutes l. We're in discussion of continuing with simple Leap 16.X. https://firstname.lastname@example.org/thread/D...
I think we'll want to be identifiable as an ALP "compatible" system. So less differences in various identification attributes the better.
TBH, the ALP version scheme is still bit cloudy to me. A good example is SLE Micro released based on ALP will go from 5.X (based on SLES 15) to 6.X based on (ALP). But internally version wise matches 15 SPX.
The current plan that we're suggesting is to use 16 both internally and externally for Leap based on ALP.
Hope it Helps
On Fri, 2023-02-03 at 21:28 -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
- Robert Schweikert email@example.com [02-03-23 15:39]:
A naming discussion, how fun
On 2/3/23 14:25, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-02-03 19:17, Jacob Michalskie wrote:
On Fr, Feb 3 2023 at 09:22:16 -0600, Larry Finger Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net wrote:
I hate that we jump around in naming the stable releases, but if Leap has to go, then a the name of a small mountain chain such as Hartz is a lot better than Grassy Knoll for the reasons stated in other responses. Choosing a German name makes sense for openSUSE.
As far as I understand this is more or less seen as a leaplacement :D for Leap, so I would hope it would inherit Leap name as well, don't give up on it yet, that's what happened with previous projects like Step.
No, if it is based on Alp, it is not "Leap".
Why not? "Leap" was created when we started consuming more packages from the enterprise build of SUSE. That concept still applies with the work that was done here. Whether that enterprise build is called SLE, timbuktu, or ALP should not matter.