On Tuesday 06 Jul 2010 12:37:58 Jakub Rusinek wrote:
Dnia 06-07-2010 o 13:34:25 Stephan Kulow <coolo@novell.com> napisał(a):
Am Dienstag 06 Juli 2010 schrieb Jakub Rusinek:
Dnia 06-07-2010 o 11:12:13 Martin Schlander <martin.schlander@gmail.com>
napisał(a):
Mandag den 5. juli 2010 17:34:35 skrev Jakub Rusinek:
Ubuntu does their numbering job well.
In my experience noone intuitively understands the Ubuntu versioning scheme - it always needs to be explained.
But at least there _is_ a reasonably good explanation for it :-)
Well, nobody says openSUSE should follow their numbering guidelines ;) . Whether they prefer year written as two digits or not, it's their choice. I'd personally vote for eg. 2010.1/2010.2, where the year represents year of the release and number after the point represents number of release that year.
So - 2010.1 would be first release in 2010, 2010.2 would be second, 2011.1 would be first in 2011 etc.
Try to say "KDE 4.4.4 won't be ready for 2010.1, but it's in 2011.1" three times quickly.
Then it's your turn to work out another solution ;) .
After criticizing my invention, Ubuntu's way seems pretty resonable. Year.month.
What exactly is wrong with the current system IS this yet another change for the sake of change or does someone have a rock solid reason for changing what seems to work very well for Opensuse note We are NOT Ubuntu we are NOT Fedora we are NOT Debian . My vote is we stay exactly as we are now and don't wreak a system that works just because someone fancies mucking things up for something to do / get their name mentioned .. There is a saying don't fix what ain't broken or dow yow fix what ay bosted Pete -- Powered by openSUSE 11.2 (x86_64) Kernel: 2.6.30-rc6-git3-4-default KDE: 4.2.86 (KDE 4.2.86 (KDE 4.3 >= 20090514)) "release 1" 14:36 up 3 days 16:20, 4 users, load average: 1.98, 1.84, 1.51