Rob OpenSuSE wrote:

On 9 July 2011 04:42, Rajko M. wrote:

...

On Friday, July 08, 2011 01:58:02 PM Karl Eichwalder wrote:

...

Maybe, you can fool users with "clever" naming, but only once. It is surely not worth trying.

Our only problem is to try a bit harder to be as close to conventions as possible, ie. meaning of Alpha, Beta and RC. Users didn't quit attempts to use development releases in a day, it took some time of upside down stability to run them away.

I don't know how possible is to have "normal" stability taking that distro has only what upstream offers and in 8 months there is a lot of upstream development, so loading Alpha with a new software, then making only minor changes during Beta and nothing, but bugfixes in RC, will result in final version few months behind upstream. With kernel, Firefox and possibly other major projects adopting rapid release of 3 months, that can mean quite old, possibly unmaintained versions shipped with release.

So rather than shipping the latest automatically, have some quality control!

I got a little behind in this thread, and will try to catch up now. There is no intent to "fool" the users. If I did not think that MS6 were fully qualified to be called a "beta", then I would not have proposed this. In fact, if it is not, then openSUSE is doomed. A reputation for releasing buggy code is impossible to shake. The scheme proposed by M. Raiko is not that different from what happens in the kernel. Anything not available by the end of the merge period has to wait for the next cycle. If openSUSE used that scheme and froze features/versions after MS2, a lot fewer bugs would make it to GM. I'm not sure that I want to go that far as we would be shipping some really old stuff. Perhaps the rolling releases of Tumbleweed will help debug many of the updates that will be in our next release. Larry -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org