On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 05:01:24PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > There is another problem with .0...N releases. As soon as you version > your main release like that, everyone assumes .0 is unstable or broken > and they wait for .1. Some wait for .2 (which doesn't exist in your > proposal but clearly could). This is a perception problem more than > anything, but it exists and is quite common. In products that have a > multi-year lifespan that isn't ideal but it also isn't the end of the > world. It just means your adoption curves look similar to Fedora's > today and the end result is that the majority of your users are > migrated when that release is well into its support lifecycle. Good point. So, I guess, another way to do this — especially if we like the "it's a big batched update" approach rather than having split lifecycles — would be to not call 'em .0 and .1 but keep to the integer version numbers released in June and call the update bundle some arbitrary name like "November Update". Or we could just use .a and .b instead of .0 and .1. Or .j and .n for June and November. -- Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Fedora Project Leader _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
