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 _______________________________________________ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
