Am Mittwoch, 30. März 2011 schrieb Helen South:

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 1:30 AM, Greg Freemyer <greg.freemyer@gmail.com> wrote:

...

I was hoping the "old-school" vote last time would allow for a vote this time of when to rollover:

a) 12.0, 12.1, 13.0, 13.1, etc. b) 12.0, 12.1, 12.2, 13.0, 13.1, 13.2, 14.0 etc. c) 12.0, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 13.0, 13.1, 13.2, 13.3, 14.0 etc. c) 12.0, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 13.0, 13.1, 13.2, 13.3, 13.4, 14.0 etc.

Ignoring Evergreen, my vote is a) because 12.0 would go out of support shortly after 13.0 would come out. So for a server etc. it might make sense to only use the .0 releases.

If Evergreen is "real" and takes support from 18 months to 36 months, then I would like to reset after .3 for the same reason. ie. all .0 releases could be designated a Evergreen release and everyone would know it.

Greg

The suggestion to use .0 to designate 'Evergreen' (or equivalent) releases is an excellent one IMHO.

This will only work if the kernel in that .0 release is also maintained as stable tree by kernel.org. Not sure you can expect that. Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org