On 6 December 2016 at 09:00, Kamil Paral <kparal@xxxxxxxxxx> 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. > > With my QA hat on, I believe using decimal releases (integers, characters or anything else) is a bad idea. The reason is that people don't remember it. Most people remember whether they have Fedora 22/23/24 or Windows 7/8/10. But they almost never remember whether they have 23.0 or 23.1. At least that was my experience when I was involved in Ubuntu in the past - when we asked "what version of Ubuntu do you have?" the answer has in 99% of cases was "Ubuntu 12". And then we had to follow up "12.04 or 12.10?" (those two being completely different releases of course, as in Fedora 23 vs 24). And then "I don't know, how do I find out?". This conversation starter was there almost every single freaking time, a huge time waster. Decimal points are a nice idea, but people just. don't. remember. (or perhaps ignore it as insignificant). I'd rather keep Fedora releases as integers, even if we decide to implement some of that what was proposed. > I am used to a similar problem with RHEL/CentOS world.. a lot of people will say they are on RHEL-6.3 or 7.1 even though they have updated to the day they ask for a problem. That version was required or written down and that is what they will say it is period. I expect that no matter what you call the .release people will refer to the major number and be confused that there could be different versions > Unless... unless we can bring back "Beefy Miracle"-like codenames as the big update names. Then I'd consider it, just for the fun involved ;-) > _______________________________________________ > 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
