Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-project (207 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-project] Re: Code names
  • From: Mark V <mvyver@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 12:43:28 +1000
  • Message-id: <389c43e40905061943p4e6bd86cs80aae2b64f23b959@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Jim Henderson <hendersj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 07 May 2009 09:07:44 +1000, Mark V wrote:

I think this is a key statement, Mark - product release/support
policies should be separate from naming schemes.  Thus the
release/support dates shouldn't really be used as part of the naming
scheme. :-)

Perhaps I diagree with my self now :) see below. If the support date is
really fixed then I'm willing to make the compromise to place that data
front and center of casual users.

Don't ya just hate when you start disagreeing with yourself? ;-)

One can even make that the support policy _should_ be the naming scheme.

Example:
Currently openSUSE has a policy of approx 2 year lifetime.  Say that
'lifespan' becomes the rule of thumb.  If circumstances change and the
community decides it wants to reduce lifespans (to reduce the
community's workload, or whatever reason).... now there is a problem. If
the EOL date is built into the naming convention this is much less a
problem, just relase with a shorter date and everyone will know.

I'm beginning to wonder if we're talking at cross purposes here.

If the release is out there already with an EOL date of 2010-12 (Dec
2010), the release is already out there, surely you wouldn't want to
change it after release because a change in circumstances lead the
community to reduce the lifespan and release more frequently?


I don't propose that. Never have.
You raised an issue where I said that such a scenario would be
concerning, and I explicitly asked if that was possible. One response
was along the lines of: no guarantee, but it has never happened yet.

Changing the name after release is certain to be disasterous, and I'm
sure you see the reasons for that, so I'm not sure I follow what you're
saying....

No I'm saying right now people might reason figure: I setup my machine
with latest, and I'm good for (roughly) two years for the release
date. If in two years they grab the next release, and the (rough)
lifespan rule-of-thumb has changed, you'll need to make sure they
don't just assume it is still two years.
Contrived I accept.


So I suppose one can actually make the case that the effects of the
'lifetime' policy (the expiry date) should be as visible as possible....

The potential problems (the known unknowns) of the end-of-life naming
scheme so far are:
 1) openSUSE introduces something like Ubuntus LTS where an older
relase can outlive a newer release.
 2) openSUSE end-of-life dates become adjustable after a final release
is published

Are those risks worth the benefit?

I know I've seen some say they'd like an LTS policy/strategy from
openSUSE, kinda like Ubuntu's policy.  That said, the obvious reply is
"if you need LTS, then you should be looking at SLES or SLED rather than
openSUSE".

Agreed.
As I've been at pains to point out from the outset: I'm assuming no
LTS type releases will made. If they are introduced they'll break the
following description given to newbies: "The release with the most
distant EOL date is the most recent release"
As I've said all along: this is one issue that would need to be
considered carefully. For me, I don't see it as a deal breaker - the
EOL info is too important.

Cheers



Jim

--
 Jim Henderson
 Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits

--
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 >
Follow Ups