On Friday 11 March 2011 14:27:59 Kim Leyendecker wrote:
Am 11.03.2011 20:25, schrieb Refilwe Seete:
Similarly, if we do adopt a date-based system - please avoid seasons for the same reason. "Spring 2011" is ~April 2011 in Germany - but ~September 2011 in South Africa.
Yes, this is the point why 2011.0 and 2011.1 is the better choice like Mandriva. But we´re not Mandriva or Ubuntu or Mint or Fedora or what ever, we´re openSUSE. Maybe it´s better for our "way we are" to stay with the current version scheme
What do you think?
thanks
Numbering a release 2011.03 provides the reader with useful, accurate information...In this case when it was released. Conversely, naming it openSUSE 11.4 seems to provide useful information but that information is not accurate. The number implies the fourth update of major version 11.0. Alternatively it could be read as an over-truncated date stamp meaning "2011 April" or perhaps "November 2004". Unfortunately, none of these are accurate. Although I understand the need to be a distinct distro, I don't see why we should continue with a confusing numbering system to do so. Certainly our community, development philosophy, unique tools, and brand are enough to keep openSUSE distinct. Besides, in the case of 'YYYY-MM' we are not directly copying any of the other "big 5" distros. We are taking the best idea from Mandriva (full year) and combining it with the best idea from Ubuntu (including the month) to create an optimal solution. Taking the best ideas - regardless of origin - and combining them into a rational, cohesive whole is what we do. Refilwe -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org