1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
|
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 4:07 PM, andré <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:andr55@laposte.net">andr55@laposte.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Sander Lepik a écrit :<div class="im"><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
02.10.2010 18:22, Remco Rijnders kirjutas:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
On Sat, Oct 02, 2010 at 03:13:27PM +0000, André Machado wrote:<br>
<br>
* Mageia 2011.0 ?<br>
* Mageia 2001.1 ?<br>
* Mageia 11.01 ? :D<br>
* Mageia 1.0 ?<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
20xx.0 -> 20xx.1 is perfect. Tho' 20xx.0 should be released at spring time and 20xx.1 later<br>
the same year. At the moment it doesn't make sense and many friends have asked why is 20xy<br>
released in 20x(y-1).<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div>
Exactly. Mandriva version numbering sounds like we are selling cars. (You know, all image and no substance.)<br>
So let's go for Mageia 2010.1 if we can do it this fall. (Hopefully)<br>
And Mageia 2011.0 in the spring.<br>
Note that we will have to recompile to change Mandriva to Mageia, so changing the version number should cause no problem.<div class="im"><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
How about instead of using 0 or 1, use the month number instead? So, .3<br>
for a release made in March. That way we are always "up to date" and can<br>
allow for release schedules slipping or having a 3rd release within a year<br>
if needed / fitting.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
Such versioning is bad. It forces you into time limit like it is with Ubuntu. And i don't<br>
like it. When the release needs to be delayed it's better to do so. Not to push it out and<br>
then land loads of fixes on it like has happened to Ubuntu. Also you don't have to remember<br>
which month it was released in year 2008. Was it 2008.3 or 2008.5?<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div>
It is a lot simpler to use 0 or 1.<br>
If the month is used, and there is a delay for some reason, would you want to have to change the names of 100's of files ?<br>
Including the dependancies in the RPM's ?<br>
Otherwise, the month would have no more meaning than 0 or 1.<br>
<br>
And why would you want 3 releases in a year ? With the pace of changes in Linux, 2 seems just right. If there are any important updates, for security, for instance, that is already built into the Mandriva system we are inheriting (like virtually all others).<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
--<br>
Sander<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
- André (andre999)<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div>Why not make them read the version info from one place? (on a long term...)<br>
|
