Revision 1.1 of my thoughts on openSUSE Versions, or why should my first release be 1.3?

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 wasn’t 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 openSUSE’s 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:

[ul]
[li] The .x shall henceforth reflect the month of release[/li]> [LIST]
[li] 1 = November[/li]> [li] 2 = July[/li]> [li] 3 = March[/li]> [/ul]

[li] We will no longer ship a .0 version.[/li]> [/LIST]

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,

They could just call the next version 11.4.0, and the following one 11.4.0.0. Or maybe start counting down.

Version numbers are marketing gimmicks. Why should we even care. It’s what on the inside that matters. Keep up the quality, and I’ll be satisfied no matter what the version number is.

It really makes no sense (to me, obviously). Since there’s no major/minor differentiation, it would mean something if it was like YY.N, YY being year and N the release number (starting from 0 or 1, doesn’t matter - or perhaps 0 give the impression of a quasi-beta release). but this ship has sailed, I’m sorry I didn’t notice the discussion on this as it was going on.

On 04/10/2011 10:06 PM, jdmcdaniel3 wrote:
>
> whom
> could be asleep at the wheel, I guess I just missed this whole
> discussion.

the discussion wasn’t held in the forums…it was held in the mail
lists…if you are not there (also) you won’t hear about all that kinda
stuff…

but, if you do go there you need to be ‘accepted’ as something other
than “just a user” or your voice will carry no weight in the discussions
and for sure you will not be allowed to vote in the one that counts…to
do that you have be a member of the openSUSE Community (currently, there
are 469)…how to become a member is in the Wiki, begin here:
http://en.opensuse.org/Portal:Project


CAVEAT: http://is.gd/bpoMD
[NNTP via openSUSE 11.3 + KDE4.5.5 + Thunderbird3.1.8]
Maybe the developers are not here because they are so busy fixing these>
http://tinyurl.com/392jnb

I guess it is too bad the openSUSE forums mean so little to those that can make such silly changes as this for the openSUSE version numbers. With only 469 votes, there is not much telling what they could vote in next. Perhaps changing to pink from green for the openSUSE lizard makes more sense.

Thank You,

It must be a slow day for you if you can get worked up over this. I can see their rationale and it’s slightly better than currently for marketing reasons since there is nothing special about .0. However it ties the scheme a bit to the 8 month cycle. Personally I think they missed a chance to go to a year.month scheme starring now, i.e. next release would be 11.11. But it’s decided so let’s get back to discussing more important things such as coffee and music.

                 It must be a slow day for you if you can get worked up over this. I  can see their rationale and it's slightly better than currently for  marketing reasons since there is nothing special about .0. However it  ties the scheme a bit to the 8 month cycle. Personally I think they  missed a chance to go to a year.month scheme starring now, i.e. next  release would be 11.11. But it's decided so let's get back to discussing  more important things such as coffee and music.                                                                                                                                                                                                                           http://forums.opensuse.org/clear.gif](http://forums.opensuse.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2321537)

Hello Ken and thanks for your comments. I try to comment on anything I think is silly, but my opinion might strike a nerve in anyone towing the company line here. As for being a slow day, my only other real problem these days seems to be bad DNS servers, so this subject did seem more important to me. As for coffee and music, these are good subjects, but the issue of coming out with a month based version scheme because no one pays attention to certain releases that don’t end with certain numbers indicate a really slow day when major decisions about our favorite distro are being made. This is the soapbox area and this subject does strike a cord with me on version numbers and openSUSE. I will try to stay between the lines here.

Thank You,

You missed the discussion that’s all so get over it. :stuck_out_tongue:

Yes, I guess I did miss the vote made by 469 people and like thousands of others that did not see this one coming, I should get over it as my opinion does not count any more. Too bad for us I guess…

Thank You,

On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 21:06 +0000, jdmcdaniel3 wrote:
> I guess it is too bad the openSUSE forums mean so little to those that
> can make such silly changes as this for the openSUSE version numbers.
> With only 469 votes, there is not much telling what they could vote in
> next. Perhaps changing to pink from green for the openSUSE lizard makes
> more sense.
>
> Thank You,
>
>
Hi
As one of those 469, maybe you should submit your membership application
and help make the silly changes with us?
http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Members


Cheers Malcolm °¿° (Linux Counter #276890)
SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop 11 (x86_64) Kernel 2.6.32.29-0.3-default
up 4 days 9:03, 2 users, load average: 0.12, 0.09, 0.03
GPU GeForce 8600 GTS Silent - Driver Version: 260.19.26

If it wasn’t a open source project, in the old closed software world anything higher than 10.x would be a bad sign as old, overloaded just to **** old.
It would have made sense to start counting with the new name (Suse > OpenSuse) to start with a new 1.x and count upward.
I do agree that it makes sense to name 1,2,3 for 3 cycles per year.
But we had the discussion already if the number before the period represents what. A major release, a new year edition or what.
Perhaps the year.

In the end i am happy with everything as long as there is a new release.

On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 20:06:02 +0000, jdmcdaniel3 wrote:

> 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.

Linux is evolutionary - major version numbers tend to imply revolutionary
changes.

The idea that “11” is a major release number and “.4” is a minor release
don’t hold for openSUSE - it’s just a way of keeping track along the path
as to where we are.

By having a fixed release schedule and fixed numbering schedule, we cut
out all the ongoing discussion about “what should the next release be”
that comes up on the mailing lists every single time a new release comes
out. So much energy has been spent on “is this 11.4 or 12.0 or something
else?” in various releases that a line needed to be drawn so we would
have a scheme.

This scheme was what was voted for by the majority of people who voted.

Jim


Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator
Forum Use Terms & Conditions at http://tinyurl.com/openSUSE-T-C

On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 20:06:02 +0000, jdmcdaniel3 wrote:

> 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.

I agree, it’s absolutely barmy. As I read the original announcement, 58%
voted for the status quo and this modified version didn’t feature in the
poll. That can’t be so, can it?


Graham Davis, Bracknell, Berks. E-mail: change boy to man
openSUSE 11.4; KDE 4.6.00; AMD Athlon X2 Dual Core Processor 5000+;
Video: Radeon HD 2400 Pro; Sound: MCP61 HDA (nVidia); Wireless: BCM4318

I agree, it’s absolutely barmy. As I read the original announcement, 58%
voted for the status quo and this modified version didn’t feature in the
poll. That can’t be so, can it?

So I don’t know what is true or not, but no matter the alleged number, is was a minority of openSUSE users to be sure.

Thank You,

On 04/13/2011 01:36 PM, jdmcdaniel3 wrote:
>
> is was a minority of openSUSE users to be sure.

no openSUSE users voted, only members of the openSUSE Community.

if you want a voice in such decisions you must request membership.


CAVEAT: http://is.gd/bpoMD
[NNTP via openSUSE 11.3 + KDE4.5.5 + Thunderbird3.1.8]
Q: Why do you upgrade?
A: Because the Gecko is always greener on the other side!
So said k428 in http://is.gd/Pwc3xq

I’m used to the Fedora numbering, so it’s going to be a bit odd to see the openSUSE numbering. Then again, I’m not too concerned. They could call it 999 for all I care. The quote below sums it pretty well.

Why do we need the abstraction layer of “Community member”. In my eyes (forgive me) anybody here on this site who did help anybody to solve any problem is for me a “community member”. Maybe I am not “elitarian” enough. Just to ask.

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 18:36:01 +0530, stakanov
<stakanov@no-mx.forums.opensuse.org> wrote:

> Why do we need the abstraction layer of “Community member”. In my eyes
> (forgive me) anybody here on this site who did help anybody to solve any
> problem is for me a “community member”. Maybe I am not “elitarian”
> enough. Just to ask.

why the focus on this site? what about those active in mailing lists, or
in other ways active in the community? i’m not sure who votes in
“community members,” but i understand the need for a group of people who
are recognized as constructive members of “the community.” anybody who
writes a couple emails to some forum, that’s too wide, IMO.


phani.

On 04/13/2011 03:06 PM, stakanov wrote:
>
> Why do we need the abstraction layer of “Community member”.

it wasn’t my idea, so i do not know…

> In my eyes (forgive me) anybody here on this site who did help
> anybody to solve any problem is for me a “community member”.

maybe you think of yourself (and many other ‘helpers’ here) as a member
of the openSUSE Community, but think again…if you don’t have an
@opensuse.org email address you are just a user…

and, a many of the real members can use that term ‘user’ as if it is
derogatory…


CAVEAT: http://is.gd/bpoMD
[NNTP via openSUSE 11.3 + KDE4.5.5 + Thunderbird3.1.8]
Q: Why do you upgrade?
A: Because the Gecko is always greener on the other side!
So said k428 in http://is.gd/Pwc3xq

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 13:06:01 +0000, stakanov wrote:

> Why do we need the abstraction layer of “Community member”. In my eyes
> (forgive me) anybody here on this site who did help anybody to solve any
> problem is for me a “community member”. Maybe I am not “elitarian”
> enough. Just to ask.

openSUSE project membership (which is what we’re talking about here) are
people who actively contribute to the project in one way or another, as
opposed to an openSUSE user, who is someone who actively uses the
distribution.

The idea (as I understand it - I am a project member myself) is that
those who contribute to the project in a concrete way have a say in the
direction of the project. The purpose is (again, as I understand it) to
encourage people contribute to the success of the project.

Jim

Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator
Forum Use Terms & Conditions at http://tinyurl.com/openSUSE-T-C