Aw: Re: Tanglu B-Release name voting will happen soon

Thomas Funk t.funk at web.de
Tue Jan 21 12:44:50 EST 2014


"Ink Apnea" <inkapnea at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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

Full Ack. I prefer numbering scheme like 1.1-Alpha1, too. It's short and meaningful ^^

--
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."   --   Albert Einstein



More information about the Tanglu-devel mailing list