Re: [Tails-dev] Release versioning

intrigeri:
> sajolida wrote (01 Jun 2015 11:31:18 GMT) :
>> ... or change from odd/even to even/odd. If we consider that this is
>> only meaningful internally and only happens on rare occasions.
>> Skipping a number might feel weird to users, but I think it's no big
>> deal either.
>
> I would personally really dislike having to deal with
> odd/even->even/odd changes of meaning. The ability to easily tell if
> a past or future release was or will be a major or a minor one is
> critical to me for planning work, deliverables, etc. Of course I'm
> totally biased on this one, but I feel it's much more important that
> some minor weirdness for user-visible version numbers: I bet 99% of
> the users don't care about version numbers, and don't understand their
> meaning anyway, while these numbers impact a lot our daily work.

It seems like this point of disagreement didn't prevent us from finding
a compromise. Probably version numbers are most often meaningful and
useful to developers only (especially in the free software world) but I
think that when used right they can also be a powerful communication
tool towards the user. The release of Tails 1.0 made quite a buzz
without us doing much and with no crazy new features. I can remember the
days I learned that Firefox 1.0 was out and how exciting it was. I also
remember Debian release names from years ago and the stuff we organized
to celebrate them. I remember how every version of Windows I used look
liked, etc.

>> I'm also tempted to propose changing the first number with major Debian
>> versions (we already almost did that for Tails Wheezy). The way we deal
>> with it right now is not really related to what the user experiences as
>> a "big change" as our improvements come in gradually. Still, a change in
>> Debian version is both a huge work for us and a big change for the user
>> (Tails Wheezy and Jessie both introduce a big change in the appearance
>> of the desktop environment, not to mention all the major updates of
>> included software).
>
> I like it.
>
> I'm tempted to amend this proposal with "first number matches Debian's
> major release version", e.g. Tails/Jessie would be Tails 8.0, but I'm
> not convinced myself that this would add much value => food for
> thought, if you folks find a convincing argument in favour of it,
> please state it, but before that happens, no need to explain why it
> wouldn't be good.
>
>> Regarding what we have been doing on our roadmap for 2.0 and 3.0 (give
>> them broad objectives) we could maybe do the same again: give us broad
>> directions for our work within a Debian lifetime.
>
> I don't really understand what this idea/proposal means in practice.

We defined 2.0 and 3.0 maybe three years ago and we still don't know
when we'll get there. My proposal here is to have more "time-based"
objectives and define broad objectives in sync with Debian lifetime. But
I think this is outside of the scope of this discussion.

--
sajolida