In our latest Newsletter our top announcement is a our newest version method to be used by openSUSE. I guess I must have missed something along the way. Here is an excerpt from that newsletter:

Or in other words, The more things change, the more they stay the
same
openSUSE does not ship major/minor releases, but our numbering/naming scheme NN.X has
led to a common misperception that a .0 release was major and a .x release was an update. This
created a number of issues, including lack of media attention for .x releases, and user
misconceptions about stability of .0 releases.
We have traditionally released versions as 11.0, 11.1, 11.2 and so on up to .3. (The
exception was 11.4 because the Project wasnt sure what to number the next release.)
The only really clear thing was our release cycle timing, as follows:
openSUSE releases on a fixed schedule every 8 months no
matter what. Therefore, all releases occur in November, July and
March.

There has been a lot of discussion over time within our community about our versioning
scheme for distribution releases. We want to ensure our growing community, including users and
media, have a clear and correct understanding of our release cycle so naming or numbering
needed to reflect that, and not cause misunderstanding.
Recently, the Project took these discussions to a poll, to gauge community feeling about
the different options. Generally, the community expressed that they wanted a scheme that was
uniquely openSUSEs and reflected our release methodology. We looked at other distros for
examples, and while we felt many had come up with excellent versioning schemes for their
distros, none properly reflected our own cycle.
From this discussion and results of the poll, we have come up with the following
scheme:

  • The .x shall henceforth reflect the month of release
    • 1 = November
    • 2 = July
    • 3 = March

  • We will no longer ship a .0 version.


This solution brings a meaningful rationale to the scheme, without completely revising the
look. And thus, our next release in November will be 12.1. In July 2012, we will ship 12.2 and
in March 2013, we will ship 12.3. Then in November 2013, we will ship 13.1.
You can read the whole thing here if you wish:

openSUSE News

Now if you are still with me, I am wondering why openSUSE really sees the need to redefine how version numbers work and why we can no longer have a revision 12.0? This is really the most silliest thing I have read in connection to openSUSE in a long time and at least for me, whom could be asleep at the wheel, I guess I just missed this whole discussion.

Since I started using openSUSE at revision 10.0, I have not seen any issues with the numbering system. I have no idea why it is important to peg the revision of openSUSE to the month it comes out on and perhaps the real fix is just just have major revisions only. Like 12.0 is next, then 13.0, err wait, I mean 14.0, then 15.0 and so forth. If no one pays attention to anything but revs ?.0, by never using it, we can make sure no one ever pays attention, if the version number really matters that much.

Now a long time ago I was told to never use revision 1.0 and if it gets to revision 7.0 it will likely never work. Perhaps we just need to pull out the old Silver, Gold or Platinum monikers and then we can drop back to revision 1.0, err I mean 1.1, err no I mean 1.3, err well you know what I mean, right? If this is not the most bulletin sheet stuff you have read in a very long time then let me know why you support this silly new numbering system for openSUSE. Try to not repeat anything already mentioned above for this change.

Thank You,