On 5 December 2016 at 17:18, 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. No there needs to be up to 3 .'s... then we can bring back the days of Red Hat Linux where Fedora 26.0 is the big changes for the release, 26.1 is an incremental change 26.2 is the one we plan to support as our LTS and we start working on .0 again.. And we can have ponies for everyone too :). [Please take the second part of the proposal as seriously as the first.] > -- > Matthew Miller > <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Fedora Project Leader > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Stephen J Smoogen. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
