Re: [opensuse-factory] openSUSE Leap's Next Major Version Number
On Monday, 24 April 2017, Carlos E. R. <robin.listas@telefonica.net> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
On 2017-04-24 23:26, Markos Chandras wrote:
In such cases is almost always better to rename the project, in this case 'Leap' to something else, to signal this major change and avoid confusion. Just like it happened for 13.X and Leap. Because going backwards is a major change and we will have to explain the reasoning for quite a while.
Yes, I concur. But I'm nobody ;-)
I think a little bit of perspective is in order. We have assigned new names to distributions only when there has been actual, substantive changes in the actual development methods and architectural content of the distribution. E.g. openSUSE - old fashioned regular release community distribution. Discontinued. Evergreen - openSUSE with extra long support from an extra repo. Discontinued. Tumbleweed - first Rolling updates from an extra repo, then pure Rolling throughout Leap - SLE base with community packages The structure, role, and content of Leap 15 would be no different than if we numbered it differently, so there is absolutely no grounds for renaming the distribution. The number is not a 'major' change. Leap is still going to be developed the same was tomorrow as we planned for the last three years regardless of the number assigned to it. It's going to work the same way. The only change is that it will be a lot easier to clearly see the link between SLE versions and Leap versions, which is important to advertise given the shared SLE core is the whole unique selling point of Leap compared to every other distribution in the world, including every other openSUSE distribution past and present. And this easier, simplified versioning will be easier to package for when cross building packages from multiple openSUSE and SLE distributions, which we all know has been a topic of some debate in the past. Changing the version number is quite enough at the moment, I have no desire to entertain the thought of changing anything else around the naming of one of our flagship offerings. I think the idea of changing more at this time is more ridiculous than anything anyone could have come up with regards to version numbers.
- -- Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 42.2 x86_64 "Malachite" (Minas Tirith)) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2
iF4EAREIAAYFAlj+c/sACgkQja8UbcUWM1xHkQD7BHvn1rultnx7EuM7B2Rdkvv2 qBt01JgGLRK0BxItpH0A/2ecenT5BAAXzuL+B/U3KTwhREfhA+9xXux6sYj2/sAv =pEJy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 12:27 AM, Richard Brown <RBrownCCB@opensuse.org> wrote:
On Monday, 24 April 2017, Carlos E. R. <robin.listas@telefonica.net> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
On 2017-04-24 23:26, Markos Chandras wrote:
In such cases is almost always better to rename the project, in this case 'Leap' to something else, to signal this major change and avoid confusion. Just like it happened for 13.X and Leap. Because going backwards is a major change and we will have to explain the reasoning for quite a while.
Yes, I concur. But I'm nobody ;-)
I think a little bit of perspective is in order.
We have assigned new names to distributions only when there has been actual, substantive changes in the actual development methods and architectural content of the distribution.
E.g. openSUSE - old fashioned regular release community distribution. Discontinued. Evergreen - openSUSE with extra long support from an extra repo. Discontinued. Tumbleweed - first Rolling updates from an extra repo, then pure Rolling throughout Leap - SLE base with community packages
The structure, role, and content of Leap 15 would be no different than if we numbered it differently, so there is absolutely no grounds for renaming the distribution.
The number is not a 'major' change. Leap is still going to be developed the same was tomorrow as we planned for the last three years regardless of the number assigned to it. It's going to work the same way.
The only change is that it will be a lot easier to clearly see the link between SLE versions and Leap versions, which is important to advertise given the shared SLE core is the whole unique selling point of Leap compared to every other distribution in the world, including every other openSUSE distribution past and present.
And this easier, simplified versioning will be easier to package for when cross building packages from multiple openSUSE and SLE distributions, which we all know has been a topic of some debate in the past.
Changing the version number is quite enough at the moment, I have no desire to entertain the thought of changing anything else around the naming of one of our flagship offerings. I think the idea of changing more at this time is more ridiculous than anything anyone could have come up with regards to version numbers.
Those are of course all valid reasons. Just add to your list that a name also change happens when version numbers take an asinine direction. Then your list will be more complete. I find it extremely difficult to believe that a software developer is okay with this change to the version number. Highly suspicious... -- Roger Oberholtzer -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
participants (2)
-
Richard Brown -
Roger Oberholtzer