Release Style Preferences - wth Poll

[robopensuse]

This thread and poll is to have a rough idea of what type of Release Cycle Model you prefer.

[rmjones101]

I voted Other...

I almost chose Rolling, however I don't think it really needs 3 sub-categories. Keeping it simple, I'd prefer just Stable and Factory.

Realistically, the only time you need a new release altogether is when drastic changes have been made to the distro's core. Beyond that, maybe each year re-package the DVD so you don't have a huge download for updates.

The only reason I upgrade to newer versions is to ensure better support from repositories and build service.

[zak89]

I would love a rolling release cycle; however I doubt openSUSE has the manpower for such a conversion. The current release cycle is good, I just wish that we didn't have be stuck behind several kernel releases before a new openSUSE release.

[Christophe_deR]

Rolling release would be great... Each install is such a stress : will my hardware be recognized ? Will the software be stable ? etc...

[robopensuse]

I voted Other...

I almost chose Rolling, however I don't think it really needs 3 sub-categories. Keeping it simple, I'd prefer just Stable and Factory.

Realistically, the only time you need a new release altogether is when drastic changes have been made to the distro's core. Beyond that, maybe each year re-package the DVD so you don't have a huge download for updates.

The only reason I upgrade to newer versions is to ensure better support from repositories and build service.

You actually want "current" I think and "Factory". I suspect you want updates when new stuff comes out.

"stable" is more enterprise stuff where as little changes as possible, just security and other critical bug fixes.

Far too boring for the desktop, but ... a great starting point for SLED/SLES I would think.

[swerdna]

The current is theoretically each 6.6 months. And it seems to generate a series of releases in name only. They seem to be perpetually in bleeding edge mode, despite being declared "released" and IMO lurching from one not-quite-ready release to the next. So I chose annual to give more time to get a polished version on the servers.

[Monex]

I choose other, because I think 6 or theoretical 6.6 months are too short and with an annual release cycle the software/kernel versions a far behind the actual version. I would prefer a release cycle between 8-10 months so that there is enough time to get improvements into it as proven in the releases of opensuse 10.3 and 11.0.

[gumb]

I think the 8-month cycle (3 supported releases over every 2 years) works well. It doesn't agree perfectly with Canonical's wishes of synchronised distro releases, but nobody said that opinion was unanimous, and clearly few here have expressed a wish for shorter 6-monthly cycles. It also may not fit perfectly with the KDE / GNOME releases, but then they don't tie in with each other anyway, so until they do, the focus should be taken off that.

The 8-month arrangement can always be slightly flexible, so one release may be 7 months to fit around a conference / other distro / marketing opportunity / Xmas / whatever, whilst the next may extend to 9 months to compensate.

Reading the comments on the mailing list and the prospect of aiming 11.2 for September's SUSE event, but with a 11.2.1 GNOME update the following month, I would say if this occurs then there's an equally valid case for doing an 11.1.1 KDE update when 4.2 arrives in February. Personally, as an ordinary desktop user and not a Linux expert, I found the situation with the factory repo optional update to KDE 4.1 in SUSE 11.0 rather confusing, and I'd have liked to have seen a more offical and clear update path, bearing in mind that the default KDE 4.0.4 was really a beta 4.1 desktop. I don't imagine other less experienced Linux newcomers would have found it too easy either.

For the next two openSUSE releases, I think there's a couple of specific, exceptional desktop environment cases to consider. The 11.2 release should ensure there is finally a watertight KDE 4.3 that can fully replace 3.5 and negate both the need for a 3.5 inclusion on the disc, and any last doubts that die-hard 3.x users may have. September sounds about right. In swinging that release in favour of KDE, the following 11.3 can swing the other way to cater for what will probably be the big GNOME 3.0, around April / May 2010. This plan can still fit in around the 8-month cycle.

One other thing to bear in mind that nobody's mentioned yet: If openSUSE is seriously trying to sway Windows users away with an all-round desktop alternative, and with the Windows 7 release reportedly now coming before the end of 2009 rather than after it, SUSE should really have a finely polished product ready to compete and steal MS's thunder; something that reviewers can hold up against it and which will still be cutting edge and not too far out of date by the end of next year. So releasing 11.2 before September and having nothing new till 2010 could be a bad move in that respect.

[smaug42]

I also chose Other. I am torn between the 8 month release cycle and the rolling release. I hate having to re-install each release, but I do because I want the newer apps/kernels that are not included in the main repos for the previous release. A reinstall is the only way to ensure you get everything in the current release scheme. But.. the 8 month release gives the project something to champion... like one of the previous commenters pointed out... Windows 7 is out in late 2009... and it would be great f 11.2 was able to steal a lot of that thunder, and fixed releases give us the possibility to do this

A lot of new users I work with will pick openSUSE (because I suggest it more than anything), and once it's installed, they do not want to reinstall in 6 to 8 months. They aren't interested... but with a rolling release, you could simply keep things up to date with YaST.

If it came down to it, in the end I think my preference is leaning towards the rolling release.

[mmientus]

-1 for Rolling Release; +1 for 3 Releases in 2 Years.