Number scheme for OpenMandriva Lx
Dear members,
like promised, we will now involve more and more the members of the association. Simply because the distribution belongs to the association, it belongs to all members.
Until now we kept the year numbering 2013.0 and 2014.0 for our two first releases. It was mainly due to 2 reasons :
- we did not have time for thinking about another numbering as we needed to produce releases quite quickly,
- we had to show we were the continuity of Mandriva Linux 2012.
However there is a discussion, started by some members, about removing the year numbering (2015.0, 2015.1...) from the official name and replacing by a simple incremental numbering (3, 4 ...).
Mainly for a communication reason that will be explained thereafter:
Even though until now we more or less kept a rythm of one main release per year, we may want to make some evolution. We have seen with Rosa development experience that thanks to the power of ABF, it's technically doable to make updates on a same release for a quite long time, much more than one year, while keeping software, libraries and kernel up to date (Rosa Fresh R is still based on 2012 release http://mirror.rosalab.ru/rosa/rosa2012.1/iso/ROSA.Fresh.R3/ and the R versions are updated releases of 2012)
Then, we may want to produce major releases, and updated releases (it's not decided, but it's one of the possibilities). But if we keep the year numbering, it may be confusing, or it may be a bad communication. If we produce 2015.0 in June 2015, an updated release of it in february 2016, calling it 2015.1 can make it appear as old, out of date etc. But calling it 2016 can make it appear as a major release, which it's not.
Keep in mind that the release development cycle model is not to change right now, though it will also be a topic that will imply the community in a close future. Changing the numbering is only, for now a way to be more able to evoluate it in the future.
skip the following part if you're not interested in the technical POV
From technical committee information, it's totally doable, knowing that it's in fact an official name, not a developement version number (we can compare it to Windows name which is not related to development number http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms724832%28v=vs.85%29.aspx). The development realease numbering will still use the scheme omv-2015.0 whatever the name is (OpenMandriva Lx 2015 or OpenMandriva Lx 3) for easing the update process.
Raphaël Jadot Tue 3 Jun 2014 10:20AM
@robertxu like said in explanation, the distepoch scheme is not to change, only a public number, like did Rosa.
Raphaël Jadot Tue 3 Jun 2014 10:27AM
@davidegaratti this is exactly the contrary, we may in the future have longer support for distributions, like rosa does, of much more than one year.
Rosa Fresh is still based on Rosa 2012, and the R1, R2, R3 are only 2012 with kind of service packs. It's for avoiding keeping, for example, a 2015 release for 2, 3 or maybe more years...
Davide Garatti Tue 3 Jun 2014 11:00AM
Yes I know, and I think we need to have a LTS version early, but I think that, for example, "OpenMandriva Lx 2015 LTS" explain exactly all the informations who a user, need to know : Baseline + LTS.
With Rosa method a standard user lost the information about the base line.
Bernhard Rosenkränzer Tue 3 Jun 2014 11:43AM
Also, if the distepoch scheme doesn't change, people will be confused about seeing 2 different version numbers in there. ("Why is this trying to install packages from omv2015.0 when I'm actually using OMV3? Will those packages even work? I'd better not install them just to be safe.")
Raphaël Jadot Tue 3 Jun 2014 2:36PM
@bernhardrosenkranz this doesn't seem to generate a problem in Rosa (still using 2012.x distepoch)
Wayne Sallee Tue 3 Jun 2014 3:21PM
Small typo: "do you agree the change the numbering" should say "do you agree to change the numbering".
:-)
Wayne Sallee
[email protected]
Raphaël Jadot Tue 3 Jun 2014 3:39PM
@davidegaratti All depend by what you mean by LTS: as an example, both R and X series are supported for a long time, since 2012. The difference between both is mainly about the choice of packages updated:
http://www.rosalab.com/products/desktop/software_components and http://www.rosalab.com/products/desktop_fresh/software_components
Then we could be technically able to have a kind of semi-rolling distro like is Rosa now, meaning people don't have to think about upgrades, or exceptionnally (not every year or every six months).
rugyada Tue 3 Jun 2014 5:13PM
Please,if you disagree or don't like it's ok, but please let's make clear that there are no technical reason which may prevent the public name change, or which may cause problems or make development harder :)
In my opinion, to disconnect the year from the release(s) just let us more freedom of movement.
rugyada Tue 3 Jun 2014 5:40PM
@Raul Liota da Rosa Yes, it could be like:
OpenMandriva 2 Phosphorus, OpenMandriva 3 Eisteinium
etc.
Well, not just Phosphorus because it's not clear what distro is (OpenMandriva).
Davide Garatti · Tue 3 Jun 2014 5:48AM
Starting numbering from 15, could be complex to explain,and however, and could be misinterpreted as a disguise of the youth of OpenMandriva.
The focus on the codename could bring OpenMandriva in the second floor, and this is not nice, especially now that we are at the beginning.
I think it would be better to keep the current scheme, maybe trying to trigger the release of major versions with the real beginning of the year.
For example, release 2015 (January 2015) 2015.1 (July 2015)
To be honest, I would avoid pushing out versions 201x.1, but I would use the potential of ABF, to maintain a release, at least a year.
This is a feedback I've ever received, not everyone wants to change and rearrange your PC with a frequency as high
Regards