On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Fedora 26 Fedora 26 +1 (which maybe confusing ≠ 27 but we're always +1'ing things around here, so it sorta fits) -- Chris Murphy _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
