On Sun, 2012-09-16 at 00:25 -0500, Rajko wrote:
We should quit with minor version nonsense: "Minor number means nothing", when in the rest of the software world it means patch level. Our approach is counter intuitive, requires additional processing and it should be treated as yet another obstacle.
The reason why we re-defined our versioning was precisely because of what you said. From a marketing standpoint, we noticed a decrease in media coverage of our releases after .0's were released. People (particularly journalists) tended to perceive .1, .2, and .3 as updates to the "major release." They saw .0 as major revision and thus didn't bother to cover as much. But in fact, .0, .1, .2, and .3 were meaningless in that concept. They were just simply releases. Just as you point out. .1, .2, .3 has meaning now, but as recently proven, that meaning became broken quite easily. This is yet another reason why I think the once-a-year release of openSUSE could be appealing. Not only would it be appealing from a technical and support perspective, but even in amrketing we'd finally do away with .x's altogether. Just have openSUSE released once a year to reflect the year. openSUSE-12 or openSUSE 2012, and 2013, and 2014, and so on. Or, if we want to get really weird, o2p0enS1U2E. (Just to freak people out, LOL) The more I have been thinking about the benefits of an annual release (even before the .x issue came into discussion) the more I find I *like* the idea of a once-a year release. It makes a lot of sense, at least in my corner. And literally, if things go haywire like it did with 12.2 release, you actually have a 12-month window within your release date. You could delay and still be "on-time." :-) So, I join the bandwagon to support an annual release plus a 2-year support lifecycle for each release. Bryen -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org