On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Jim Henderson <hendersj@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 12:23:06 -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
I like the 8-month cycle, and support the return to November, August and March for releases .1, .2, and .3, respectively.
I would agree with this.
As a primarily a leaf package maintainer, I don't feel one way or the other, but respect the desire of Coolo to maintain the March, November, July cycle (don't know where August came from).
With the "short" release cycle, I suggest that the elimination of SystemV be delayed until 13.1.
I would also agree with this - that gives enough advance notice to those who have something to migration from sysv to systemd, and the change in "major" version number (yeah, I know that's not really how the versioning works, but it's still a perceptual thing) makes for a clear signal that there is a significant change - and aligning a significant change with that bump in release number intuitively makes sense for users.
The elimination of sysv does seem to be too big for March from what little I know. I vote we skip a big 12.3 spring release and prepare for a 13.1 fall release with systemd only supported. But I propose in roughly the March timeframe we do a major respin of 12.2 with UEFI secure boot included. Further that we use Tumbleweed as the source of the respin. ie. devel => factory => tumbleweed => march 12.2 respin with UEFI secure boot If UEFI secure boot is ready earlier or later, then we adjust the time of the respin based on its availability. Tumbleweed would need to guarentee sysV init support through at least the March respin. Does that make sense technically? ie. have factory start dropping sysV init support now, but have tumbleweed maintain it at least thru March? Maybe a factory-no-sysVinit-staging repo would be needed. Greg -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org