Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-project (207 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-project] Code names
  • From: Mark V <mvyver@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 10:15:52 +1000
  • Message-id: <389c43e40905041715l234d1569se53f292669552064@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Allow me to argue against colors once more...

On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 5:27 AM, Pavol Rusnak <prusnak@xxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >