[Mageia-discuss] Wish List

[andré]

Sander Lepik a écrit :
>   02.10.2010 18:22, Remco Rijnders kirjutas:
>    
>> On Sat, Oct 02, 2010 at 03:13:27PM +0000, André Machado wrote:
>>
>> * Mageia 2011.0 ?
>> * Mageia 2001.1 ?
>> * Mageia 11.01 ? :D
>> * Mageia 1.0 ?
>>      
> 20xx.0 ->  20xx.1 is perfect. Tho' 20xx.0 should be released at spring time and 20xx.1 later
> the same year. At the moment it doesn't make sense and many friends have asked why is 20xy
> released in 20x(y-1).
>    
Exactly.  Mandriva version numbering sounds like we are selling cars.  
(You know, all image and no substance.)
So let's go for Mageia 2010.1 if we can do it this fall.  (Hopefully)
And Mageia 2011.0 in the spring.
Note that we will have to recompile to change Mandriva to Mageia, so 
changing the version number should cause no problem.
>> How about instead of using 0 or 1, use the month number instead? So, .3
>> for a release made in March. That way we are always "up to date" and can
>> allow for release schedules slipping or having a 3rd release within a year
>> if needed / fitting.
>>      
> Such versioning is bad. It forces you into time limit like it is with Ubuntu. And i don't
> like it. When the release needs to be delayed it's better to do so. Not to push it out and
> then land loads of fixes on it like has happened to Ubuntu. Also you don't have to remember
> which month it was released in year 2008. Was it 2008.3 or 2008.5?
>    
It is a lot simpler to use 0 or 1.
If the month is used, and there is a delay for some reason, would you 
want to have to change the names of 100's of files ?
Including the dependancies in the RPM's ?
Otherwise, the month would have no more meaning than 0 or 1.

And why would you want 3 releases in a year ?  With the pace of changes 
in Linux, 2 seems just right.  If there are any important updates, for 
security, for instance, that is already built into the Mandriva system 
we are inheriting (like virtually all others).
> --
> Sander
>    
- André (andre999)