Allow me to argue against colors once more... On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 5:27 AM, Pavol Rusnak <prusnak@suse.cz> wrote:
Andrew Wafaa wrote:
if we go for a code name use it only as a pet name rather than the primary name.
As far I understood it from the thread, people are suggesting to use code names as an extension to the (unchanged) numbering scheme.
Example:
11.2 Amaranth 11.3 Burgundy 12.0 Crimson 12.1 Denim 12.2 Emerald 12.3 Fuchsia ... you get the idea ... :-)
This might send a signal to the community that:
* each openSUSE release is individual & unique
Then either the <Major_num>.<Minor_num> or the <name> seems redundant. Neither version number nor name tell me anyhting useful. Certainly not when I should give the release up and move on.
* major changes do not happen only in x.0 releases
Then why do we distinguish minor from major releases? If this really is the case I think many users, and not just novices, will be surprised. My impression is the convention that minor numbers indicate minor changes is so ingrained the project/community has a responsibility to stop using minor number changes to indicate major changes. Further more if 10.3->11.0 means no more than 10.1->10.2 then I'd also argue we are misleading 'novices' or even sophisticated outsiders. This suggests moving to a identity naming scheme that abandons incremental numbering is imperative.
* x.0 is not less mature than the others
Then why do we insist on using such numbering?
* x.1,2,3 are not just updates to the previous ones
Then really these minor number increments seem misleading given what I understand is the information 'average' users impute from these schemes. OK so I'm repeating myself.... Why is using the end-of-life YY-MM not: - informative about an important piece of information? - indicative of freshness? That is, it seems clear that 09-11 is an older release than 10-12 Granted there will be some explaining to do, but the benefits are: - You can still (if I understand openSUSE release/support policy correctly) tell which release is newer than the other. The color scheme does not allow this, so you would still need numbering. Numbering detail that is meaningless - all noise no signal. - You clearly indicate when a release has expired. Reading an email or forum thread about openSUSE 12-01 (or 12:01 to disambiguate the legacy numbering convention) in 2013 means I know this information is likely either built in to my current 'alive' release or irrelevant. Some issues are: - What should the YY and MM separator be? It probably should not be '.' to avoid confusion with the current numbering scheme. - Is it possible that end-of-life dates might leapfrog, e.g. 13-07 is older than 13-10. I understand that this might happen with Ubuntu's LTS release/support policy but I thought the openSUSE release/support policy ruled this scenario out... correct? No one has raised an objection to end-of-life YY-MM naming. I agree that it is a (very?) different idea. Is it really that stupid an idea, as to be axiomatically a bad idea :) Some reasons it is a bad (counter-productive) idea are.... Cheers Mark
-- Best Regards / S pozdravom,
Pavol RUSNAK SUSE LINUX, s.r.o Package Maintainer Lihovarska 1060/12 PGP 0xA6917144 19000 Praha 9, CR prusnak[at]suse.cz http://www.suse.cz -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org