Tanglu B-Release name voting will happen soon

Ink Apnea inkapnea at gmail.com
Tue Jan 21 12:37:38 EST 2014


On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 11:02 AM,  <ca2013 at arcor.de> wrote:
>
>> ** the numbering scheme **
>> <major release>.<service-pack>./-<alpha/beta>
>> Examples:
>> 1.0.A1, 1.0-A1
>>
>> ** year scheme **
>> <year>.<release-in-the-year>[.<service-pack>]./-<alpha/beta>
>> Examples:
>> 2014.1-B2, 2014.1.1.B2, 2014.1.1-B2
>
> Good idea, I think the "year-point" scheme may be a good alternative for "year-letter"
> development branching.
>
> For alpha/beta releases, isn't that usually just append like in 2014.1-beta2 ?


Right, Betas and Alphas are not a concern, just append -Alpha1, -
Beta2, -RC1 and anybody that has ever installed an OS  is going to
know that the ISO it's not production quality.

I think that trying to make things simple has brought us too close to
complexity again.
Matthias explained what codenames are for and I'm OK with this.
More the discussion is going forward and more I'm convinced the things
should be done the old way and that Tanglu numbering should start with
1 and 1.1 for service packs. Let me explain...

1)
Basically, the common user is not concerned with the release date.
Does somebody care about the year/month Windows 7 or 8 were released?
I think no, he wants to know only 2 things:
- if he's running the last, the second last or an obsolete version.
- if the version installed on his machine is still supported.
Windows 8.1 is clearly a minor update to 8 as it's version number suggests.
Sorry for using the “bad guy” as an example but it fits the error
prone common user paradigm :-)

When I'll hear the news that Tanglu 5 is out, I'll check my current
install, do the math and say: "I have still the version 3, so I'm two
versions behind, it's time to upgrade!"
Drawing conclusions from numbers 1.2, 1.8, 2.2 and 2.8 is not so
straightforward.

2)
The Ubuntu numbering convention is good and indicative and we have
become accustomed over the years. While having more distributions
named this way (YY.MM and YYYY.MM) could allow direct comparisons with
releases of other distros, the drawback could become bigger for common
users when looking for help on the web. If you have different patterns
to remember: Ubuntu (YY.04, YY.10), Tanglu (YY.02, YY.08), some eight
month cycle distro (YY.01, YY.09, YY.05), some random-cycle distro
(YY.09, YY.12) how are you going to remember all those numbers
correctly without the risk of messing them? "I need help with my
install of Tanglu 14.04." "What? Are you sure?"
Also, this is not very useful when comparing Debian and Tanglu versions.

3)
Tanglu is not a rolling distribution. Year and month numbering schemes
seem more suitable for rolling distributions where install ISOs are
periodical snapshots of the archive state and are rarely referred when
asking for support (except install problems).

I'm just trying to sort out which things could be more important to
the majority of users as opposed to the more technically demanding
minority like us. Thanks for participating in the discussion.
Regards,
Ink Apnea


More information about the Tanglu-devel mailing list