From 1be510f9529cb082f802408b472a77d074b394c0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nicolas Vigier Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 13:46:12 +0000 Subject: Add zarb MLs html archives --- .../20101007/145d9585/attachment-0001.html | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++ .../attachments/20101007/145d9585/attachment.html | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 104 insertions(+) create mode 100644 zarb-ml/mageia-discuss/attachments/20101007/145d9585/attachment-0001.html create mode 100644 zarb-ml/mageia-discuss/attachments/20101007/145d9585/attachment.html (limited to 'zarb-ml/mageia-discuss/attachments/20101007/145d9585') diff --git a/zarb-ml/mageia-discuss/attachments/20101007/145d9585/attachment-0001.html b/zarb-ml/mageia-discuss/attachments/20101007/145d9585/attachment-0001.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000..03b3b4ed3 --- /dev/null +++ b/zarb-ml/mageia-discuss/attachments/20101007/145d9585/attachment-0001.html @@ -0,0 +1,52 @@ +

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 4:07 PM, andré <andr55@laposte.net> wrote:
+Sander Lepik a écrit :

+
+  02.10.2010 18:22, Remco Rijnders kirjutas:
+  
+
+On Sat, Oct 02, 2010 at 03:13:27PM +0000, André Machado wrote:
+
+* Mageia 2011.0 ?
+* Mageia 2001.1 ?
+* Mageia 11.01 ? :D
+* Mageia 1.0 ?
+    
+
+20xx.0 ->  20xx.1 is perfect. Tho' 20xx.0 should be released at spring time and 20xx.1 later
+the same year. At the moment it doesn't make sense and many friends have asked why is 20xy
+released in 20x(y-1).
+  
+
+Exactly.  Mandriva version numbering sounds like we are selling cars.  (You know, all image and no substance.)
+So let's go for Mageia 2010.1 if we can do it this fall.  (Hopefully)
+And Mageia 2011.0 in the spring.
+Note that we will have to recompile to change Mandriva to Mageia, so changing the version number should cause no problem.

+
+ +How about instead of using 0 or 1, use the month number instead? So, .3
+for a release made in March. That way we are always "up to date" and can
+allow for release schedules slipping or having a 3rd release within a year
+if needed / fitting.
+    
+
+Such versioning is bad. It forces you into time limit like it is with Ubuntu. And i don't
+like it. When the release needs to be delayed it's better to do so. Not to push it out and
+then land loads of fixes on it like has happened to Ubuntu. Also you don't have to remember
+which month it was released in year 2008. Was it 2008.3 or 2008.5?
+  
+
+It is a lot simpler to use 0 or 1.
+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 ?
+Including the dependancies in the RPM's ?
+Otherwise, the month would have no more meaning than 0 or 1.
+
+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).
+ +
+--
+Sander
+  
+
+- André (andre999)
+
+
Why not make them read the version info from one place? (on a long term...)
diff --git a/zarb-ml/mageia-discuss/attachments/20101007/145d9585/attachment.html b/zarb-ml/mageia-discuss/attachments/20101007/145d9585/attachment.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000..03b3b4ed3 --- /dev/null +++ b/zarb-ml/mageia-discuss/attachments/20101007/145d9585/attachment.html @@ -0,0 +1,52 @@ +

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 4:07 PM, andré <andr55@laposte.net> wrote:
+Sander Lepik a écrit :

+
+  02.10.2010 18:22, Remco Rijnders kirjutas:
+  
+
+On Sat, Oct 02, 2010 at 03:13:27PM +0000, André Machado wrote:
+
+* Mageia 2011.0 ?
+* Mageia 2001.1 ?
+* Mageia 11.01 ? :D
+* Mageia 1.0 ?
+    
+
+20xx.0 ->  20xx.1 is perfect. Tho' 20xx.0 should be released at spring time and 20xx.1 later
+the same year. At the moment it doesn't make sense and many friends have asked why is 20xy
+released in 20x(y-1).
+  
+
+Exactly.  Mandriva version numbering sounds like we are selling cars.  (You know, all image and no substance.)
+So let's go for Mageia 2010.1 if we can do it this fall.  (Hopefully)
+And Mageia 2011.0 in the spring.
+Note that we will have to recompile to change Mandriva to Mageia, so changing the version number should cause no problem.

+
+ +How about instead of using 0 or 1, use the month number instead? So, .3
+for a release made in March. That way we are always "up to date" and can
+allow for release schedules slipping or having a 3rd release within a year
+if needed / fitting.
+    
+
+Such versioning is bad. It forces you into time limit like it is with Ubuntu. And i don't
+like it. When the release needs to be delayed it's better to do so. Not to push it out and
+then land loads of fixes on it like has happened to Ubuntu. Also you don't have to remember
+which month it was released in year 2008. Was it 2008.3 or 2008.5?
+  
+
+It is a lot simpler to use 0 or 1.
+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 ?
+Including the dependancies in the RPM's ?
+Otherwise, the month would have no more meaning than 0 or 1.
+
+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).
+ +
+--
+Sander
+  
+
+- André (andre999)
+
+
Why not make them read the version info from one place? (on a long term...)
-- cgit v1.2.1