On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Rob OpenSuSE wrote:
Really I'm arguing for more minor releases, with smaller better focussed changes, done in a way that does get used, so that the FINAL retail release is of higher quality.
Would these minor releases be true releases, or more like milestones on the way to a true release? For example, once .2 has been released, will there still be security updates for .1 or will users be asked to move to .2?
Perhaps it will be beneficial (for the sake of this discussion) to separate the question of naming from the contents, since numbers like x.1 or terms like Beta have certain connotations.
My feeling is that openSUSE Betas generally have not been more stable than Alphas, and RCs not necessarily more so than Betas. One way to combine this with what I _think_ you are proposing is to do, say, a mini-release (call it milestone or whatever) every 2, 3, or 4 months that brings a succint set of changes and has a _short_ stabilization phase, and then do a full release every three, four such mini-releases.
Only full releases will see security updates for 18-24 months, users of mini-releases will be asked to move to the next mini-release (which is still more stability than FACTORY provides today). Full launching happens for the full release, but we'll certainly want to also be a bit vocal about mini-releases.
Is this in line with what you are thinking, a sensible variation thereof, or quite something different?