Andreas Jaeger wrote:
* Why did we call 11.0 11.0 and not 10.4?
for 10 and 11 the .0 version was always the one prior to a SUSE Linux Enterprise (SLE) release and .1 was the one SLE was based on. Why should we give up the relation to SLE? Isn't it a thing to be proud of? At least people telling me they are.
Which brings us to another point: Nobody else is aware of that!
Exactly! Before I add a few comments, I'd like to say that I'm not really too concerned with the openSUSE numbering scheme. Yes, I would like it to be meaningful, and yes, I do use it as I have a number of servers running everything from 7.1 to 11.2. (my company is conservative, when it ain't borken ...)
As we deliver a huge amount of software for many areas it will be more then difficult to go to an .0 release because of any major change as it won't be easy to set the rule what a major change (major desktop version, major kernel, major or new application etc) is.
Exactly, this major/minor renaming is bad.
I agree that working to a strict major/minor scheme is difficult, but I don't quite understand this comment about renaming, Andreas? Wrt Michaels comment, I think it might be possible to define reasonable major number thresholds. We (and presumably SLE product management) would just have to accept that major releases won't happen very often.
Btw. if we go to the SLE numbering, I propose to change it so that SLE is based on the *last* minor release - so, once SLE is out, we increase the major.
Bit of a catch-22 - we won't know what the last minor is until SLE is out, but that is already based on the last. If we're keeping the major.minor versioning, I don't think such a strong coupling is a good idea, tbh. The change of major# would be as meaningless as it is today. I am in no way intimately familiar with the SLE product cycle etc., but is it important to have such a strong coupling between openSUSE and SLE?
Otherwise there's too much going back and forth when to release SLE and openSUSE and when to increase the version number - just imagine SLE suddenly decides to get released earlier/later than planned.
Okay, here's more coupling that we (us out here in the wild) are unaware of.
And we're just so honest let me add some argument from my side why I'm oppose to change the versioning scheme: - do we gain more contributors or users through a new versioning scheme
Not gain - but avoid confusion and help planning.
I would also oppose a change of the scheme, but I would welcome a stricter adherence to it.
I'm glad that we're now at a strict 8 month release cycle - one headache less. I'd like to see a similar predictable version number.
Unless we just do sequential numbering, anything else implies planning. If we're not expecting to plan outline/contents/changes any better than we do today, a plain sequential numbering would be best. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (21.0°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org