I think openSUSE versioning schem is not clear, it is a little confusing. So why doesn’t it use a clear versioning schem such as ubuntu one? I think ubuntu versioning schem ($year.$month) is the best. i suggest openSUSE to use this versioning schem: ($year.$month).
You’re too late. A poll was held many months back to help select the versioning scheme and the choice has been made.
OK, i was not aware of that. So what was the result?
It’s in the article I provided the link for above.
OK i saw that and unfortunately it is still confusing. why the release in March 2013 is 12.3?! assume that after for example 10 years when some one see this number he would think it means March 2012.
i know that the poll is ended and my opinion maybe could not change anything but i think developers could use a better schem such as (&year.*month) for example 13.M for March 2013 or 13.N for November 2013.
Personally I was one of those who favoured 11.11 and then 12.07 and so forth. (Not the initial of the month, it’s English-centric and also many months have the same initial.) But it’s of little importance. As long as the numbers increase, and everybody know that 12.1 > 11.4. There may be some misunderstanding that the major number is the year, but only if you have been used to *buntu. Somebody coming from Mint or Fedora won’t have this expectation.
I should add that the probable reason for the 3 release cycle is due to the connection with SUSE Linux Enterprise releases.
One thing i would like somebody to explain. There is an incessant part of posts that claim:
- no developers visit the forum or look at forumposts
- no proposals should be posted here (but in openFATE or proposed to the “devs”)
But then now and then a “poll” is held on very important issues. In this polls, on a basis (that I repute very thin ice) of users representation, if the outcome goes in the right direction fine. If not the poll “closes early”.
Honestly, not convincing.
So to answer his questions: the version scheme seems to follow the “trial and error” random consideration. No apparent strategy is apparent but maybe the trial to create something that may be "compliant with the business branch (which is not bare of logic, as the openSUSE distribution seems to cover the “beta trial version” of the commercial one). Another thing they may look at is the outcome in terms of download statistics with the respective and with which one users complain less about not understanding what is stable and what is not.
What seems does not work anymore in these schemes is that they denote a heavy redundancy and logical problems that will, IMO, lower bug reporting and confuse a lot of users. To elaborate, there is no logical and strategical coherence between “stable distribution” (what is stable, there is a continuous push for the latest distribution out, while users of previous versions often get as solution “to update”) and between stable, tumbleweed and beta. Why should i use beta if I have tumbleweed? For idealism to help other users and myself? But there is no real “stable” version anymore (there are no "showstopper bugs, the release will be pushed out, no matter if the bugs found are severe and no matter if they get fixed beforehand - at least this argument was presented several times here), so this motivation (altruism) may well be gone.
All this is puzzling me more and more and I would really like to know the rational behind the current version system, where version is NOT only the number scheme but the underlying logic. I see more a problem of coherence in the whole setup.
On 2011-12-28 10:46, stakanov wrote:
> One thing i would like somebody to explain. There is an incessant part
> of posts that claim:
>
> - no developers visit the forum or look at forumposts
Very few, that’s a fact. They don’t like going down here. Ask them why.
> - no proposals should be posted here (but in openFATE or proposed to
> the “devs”)
As they don’t read here, they will never know.
> But then now and then a “poll” is held on very important issues. In
> this polls, on a basis (that I repute very thin ice) of users
> representation, if the outcome goes in the right direction fine. If not
> the poll “closes early”.
I do not know who makes those polls and if they are used for anything.
> Honestly, not convincing.
> So to answer his questions: the version scheme seems to follow the
> “trial and error” random consideration. No apparent strategy is apparent
> but maybe the trial to create something that may be "compliant with the
> business branch (which is not bare of logic, as the openSUSE
If you are curious about why that scheme was decided, the history is
recorded in the project mail list archive. Proposals were made, then a
period to vote was opened (not here). The winners (plural) were then
subjected to a second round of votes by openSUSE members only.
So the decision is final. It is useless to argue about it anymore, even
less here.
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 11.4 x86_64 “Celadon” at Telcontar)
On 12/28/2011 10:46 AM, stakanov wrote:
> But then now and then a “poll” is held on very important issues.
welllllll…the ‘poll’ was not held in this forum…it was a poll of
the members of “The openSUSE Community” who were polled…if you are not
a member of that community you were not asked (and, neither was i)…
there are today 505 members (cite:
https://connect.opensuse.org/pg/groups/111/opensuse-members/), and very
few of them visit these forums…
–
DD
openSUSE®, the “German Engineered Automobiles” of operating systems!
On 12/28/2011 09:36 AM, ilAli wrote:
> why the release in March 2013 is 12.3? assume that after for example
> 10 years when some one see this number he would think it means March
> 2012.
no, only those who spent time in Ubuntu would think that…
folks who spent time in (say) Fedora wouldn’t think that…because in
month 12 of 2011 Fedora released version 16, shocking isn’t it…
you might wonder why they didn’t wait until 2016, or 16 as 11-something,
but they already had had an 11, in 2009!!!
just forget the ubuntu numbering scheme and you will not be confused.
–
DD
openSUSE®, the “German Engineered Automobiles” of operating systems!
On 2011-12-28 15:17, DenverD wrote:
> welllllll…the ‘poll’ was not held in this forum…it was a poll of
> the members of “The openSUSE Community” who were polled…if you are not a
> member of that community you were not asked (and, neither was i)…
That was the second poll. The first one was open to everyone.
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 11.4 x86_64 “Celadon” at Telcontar)
On 12/28/2011 03:33 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> That was the second poll. The first one was open to everyone.
i believe you if you say so…but, which poll actually set the
current method: the open poll or the poll of the members?
you may remember when Jos was first hired he came to these fora for a
while, even started a strategy discussion here…but, all of that
ended within…
only members get a vote.
users get no vote.
–
DD
openSUSE®, the “German Engineered Automobiles” of operating systems!
Very few members visit this forum ? I believe the percent of developers and packagers who visit our forum is a small % (although we do have a small number of prominent developers/packagers on our forum) but I don’t think it accurate to state very few members visit the forum. From whence do you derive that definitive statement that has no qualifications next to it ? I believe it an unsubstantiated opinion. I also believe it wrong.
My apologies in advance for being somewhat controversial by challenging such a statement.
about fedora i should reminder that it’s numbers are continus numbers and they do not have any relation to any date (year or month) but openSUSE schem is related to date, it is related to year and month and it is normal someone think a way that may think about ubuntu numbers.
Obviously not, or 12.1 wouldn’t already be out. A relationship to the date is merely what you want.
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 07:56:02 +0000, ilAli wrote:
> I think openSUSE versioning schem is not clear, it is a little
> confusing. So why doesn’t it use a clear versioning schem such as ubuntu
> one? I think ubuntu versioning schem ($year.$month) is the best. i
> suggest openSUSE to use this versioning schem ($year.$month).
It’s actually extremely straightforward.
All versions end with .1, .2, or .3 (this is not a minor version number,
just a way of differentiating releases).
The release cycle is every 8 months.
The versioning was discussed at length on the project mailing list, and
what we have is what was decided by the project members after that
discussion.
There are about 15 billion ways to do versioning, and 100% of people
aren’t going to be happy whatever is decided. For better or for worse,
this is what the versioning system is - CHANGING versioning systems causes
more confusion than anything.
Jim
Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator
Forum Use Terms & Conditions at http://tinyurl.com/openSUSE-T-C
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 08:36:03 +0000, ilAli wrote:
> OK i saw that and unfortunately it is still confusing. why the release
> in March 2013 is 12.3?!
The version number and the date are not connected.
Jim
–
Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator
Forum Use Terms & Conditions at http://tinyurl.com/openSUSE-T-C
On 12/28/2011 05:46 PM, ilAli wrote:
> openSUSE schem is related to date
no, the numbering of the versions is in no way related to any
date…and, never has been…it just, by accident had one 11.x
releases in 2011 here is the way it went
ver date
12.1 11/11
11.4 11/3
11.3 10/7
11.2 09/11
11.1 08/12
11.0 08/6
10.3 07/10
enough??? got it now?
–
DD
openSUSE®, the “German Engineered Automobiles” of operating systems!
On 12/28/2011 04:46 PM, oldcpu wrote:
>
> a small % … very few
you really want to discuss the difference between “a small %” and “very
few” really?
instead i ask you to edit my statement in the questionable post to read:
“there are today 505 members (cite:
https://connect.opensuse.org/pg/groups/111/opensuse-members/), and a
small percentage of forum participants are members…”
then, we don’t have to be any of controversial, challenging or
apologetic… 
and, as edited it will remain an unsubstantiated opinion…
–
DD
openSUSE®, the “German Engineered Automobiles” of operating systems!
On 2011-12-28 15:58, DenverD wrote:
> On 12/28/2011 03:33 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> That was the second poll. The first one was open to everyone.
>
> i believe you if you say so…but, which poll actually set the current
> method: the open poll or the poll of the members?
Both. The first poll reduced the list of possibilities down to three, IIRC.
Then the second poll reduced those three to one.
Almost a typical two round vote. 
> you may remember when Jos was first hired he came to these fora for a
> while, even started a strategy discussion here…but, all of that ended
> within…
Not much.
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 11.4 x86_64 “Celadon” at Telcontar)