On 6 December 2016 at 09:00, Kamil Paral <kpa...@redhat.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 05:01:24PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: >> > There is another problem with .0...N releases. As soon as you version >> > your main release like that, everyone assumes .0 is unstable or broken >> > and they wait for .1. Some wait for .2 (which doesn't exist in your >> > proposal but clearly could). This is a perception problem more than >> > anything, but it exists and is quite common. In products that have a >> > multi-year lifespan that isn't ideal but it also isn't the end of the >> > world. It just means your adoption curves look similar to Fedora's >> > today and the end result is that the majority of your users are >> > migrated when that release is well into its support lifecycle. >> >> Good point. So, I guess, another way to do this — especially if we like >> the "it's a big batched update" approach rather than having split >> lifecycles — would be to not call 'em .0 and .1 but keep to the integer >> version numbers released in June and call the update bundle some >> arbitrary name like "November Update". >> >> Or we could just use .a and .b instead of .0 and .1. Or .j and .n for >> June and November. > > With my QA hat on, I believe using decimal releases (integers, characters or > anything else) is a bad idea. The reason is that people don't remember it. > Most people remember whether they have Fedora 22/23/24 or Windows 7/8/10. But > they almost never remember whether they have 23.0 or 23.1. At least that was > my experience when I was involved in Ubuntu in the past - when we asked "what > version of Ubuntu do you have?" the answer has in 99% of cases was "Ubuntu > 12". And then we had to follow up "12.04 or 12.10?" (those two being > completely different releases of course, as in Fedora 23 vs 24). And then "I > don't know, how do I find out?". This conversation starter was there almost > every single freaking time, a huge time waster. Decimal points are a nice > idea, but people just. don't. remember. (or perhaps ignore it as > insignificant). I'd rather keep Fedora releases as integers, even if we > decide to implement some of that what was proposed. >
I am used to a similar problem with RHEL/CentOS world.. a lot of people will say they are on RHEL-6.3 or 7.1 even though they have updated to the day they ask for a problem. That version was required or written down and that is what they will say it is period. I expect that no matter what you call the .release people will refer to the major number and be confused that there could be different versions > Unless... unless we can bring back "Beefy Miracle"-like codenames as the big > update names. Then I'd consider it, just for the fun involved ;-) > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org -- Stephen J Smoogen. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
