On 17.12.2010 15:54, Thomas Hertweck wrote:
On 17/12/10 12:20, Pavol Rusnak wrote:
a) we don't need to change the way of our next release marketing (11.4) b) we don't have to discuss if some future version is worth bumping major version or just minor version, ever! c) we don't use date in version, so we can afford slipping the release if we really need to and don't ship broken releases like Ubuntu does
I agree that openSUSE should not be based on a major.minor versioning scheme. The reason is fairly obvious: we don't release minor versions. It's not like a Win XP SP2 or so. I would therefore also be inclined to switch to a different system at some point, which uses a single unique identifier for a release. Whether we should adopt the Fedora versioning scheme (12, 13, ...) or come up with a different one is another question. Some people might prefer Fedora 18 over openSUSE 12 because the 18 just seems to be more up-to-date than the 12. I am not sure whether that's relevant, though. Just some thoughts.
PS: I think a major.minor versioning scheme makes sense for software that really has proper bugfix/minor releases. In our company, we bump up the major version whenever something stops being backwards compatible. If we ship minor updates that are fully backwards compatible, we only bump up the minor version number. Of course such a scheme wouldn't work for an entire OS as there's probably always something that isn't fully backwards compatible.
Well, maybe a release scheme like 2010.12 will be the best way.
I don't agree that there aren't any bugfixes. Maybe they comming in the future.
kind regards kdl
PS: Let talk on the generell numbering in the Time for a change Thread, that you all have get.