If we declare the release that SUSE paid employees release and maintain (security) as _the original_ and therefore declare this group of people as "special", i.e. they hold the monopoly on releasing things that are branded "openSUSE VERSION_NUMBER", as in _the original_ then indeed a renaming would be out of place, and the new SLES source based release that is being worked on as :42 would be _the original_, aka "regular release". This naming "openSUSE VERSION_NUMBER" is being advocated by some in the community, and there are certainly reasonable arguments for proceeding in that direction.
Instead of categorising our existing Release/Maintainence team as "special" and implying it's a result of their employer, not the work they DO for the project, you could just as easily see this situation as "the current contributors responsible for the release integration, release, and maintenance of the openSUSE regular release want to develop future regular releases in a different way" In that frame of mind, this discussion about renaming starts to dance towards a situation where active contributors are having the name of the 'thing' which they work on being openly debated. I wonder whether a conclusion made by those debating would be easily accepted or acceptable to those doing the work in such circumstances? In short, I think this is another reason why I think it's best we leave the naming discussion until further down the road, when it's more necessary, and we have a better idea of what the openSUSE Project is actually producing. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org