anonym wrote (31 May 2015 22:20:13 GMT) :
> On 05/31/2015 09:24 AM, intrigeri wrote:
>> * we're not very clear what the first component means (1.0 had
>> a well-defined meaning, no idea what 2.0 will be; we're currently
>> using 2.0 and 3.0 on our roadmap to make mid/long-term perspectives
>> and goals more readable to everyone involved, but that doesn't
>> mean we'll indeed release ISOs labeled 2.0 and 3.0 when we reach
>> them; I know that's confusing, sorry)
> I think it would be much nicer to leave the version numbers for actual
> releases, and use descriptive milestone names for larger visions that
> currently do not have a set Tails release, something like:
> * 2.0 => Tails_maintainability
> * 3.0 => Tails_hardening
> * 4.0 => Tails_jessie
Yay, I like it!
Note that strictly speaking, we don't need the "Tails_" prefix. Also,
I would find it nice to clearly distinguish the "target versions" that
will be 100% reached on a flag day, and by releasing a given Tails
only (e.g. Tails/Jessie), from the ones that are more general
milestones. So, that could become:
* 2.0 => Milestone_Sustainability
* 3.0 => Milestone_Hardening
* 4.0 => Tails_Jessie
Thoughts?
Cheers!
--
intrigeri
