3 ms·
I think what Oracle is doing wrt. LTS is actually quite reasonable. However they adopted the versioning scheme from Ubuntu and I honestly think it is confusing
by chvid 8y ago
I think what Oracle is doing wrt. LTS is actually quite reasonable.
However they adopted the versioning scheme from Ubuntu and I honestly think it is confusing.
What really is going on is this:
1 Major version 1
2 Major version 1 + latest and greatest features pack 1
3 Major version 1 + latest and greatest features pack 2
4 Major version 2
5 Major version 2 + latest and greatest features pack 1
6 Major version 2 + latest and greatest features pack 2
7 Major version 3
8 Major version 3 + latest and greatest features pack 1
9 Major version 3 + latest and greatest features pack 2
...
Picking a version scheme that made that obvious would have been helpful.
- yxhuvud 8y agoWhat? Ubuntu has a Year.month versioning scheme. Nothing like that seems to be going on here.
- chvid 8y agoHah. Sorry that is correct. They do have the same LTS, update, update, LTS, update, update thing going on as far as I can see.
- kasperni 8y agoThey are using the same versioning scheme (semantic versioning) as they have always done. With an increment in the major version number indicating that a release contains significant new features and/or old features being removed. The scheme you propose would imply that it is only LTS releases that get significant new functionality.
- kjeetgill 8y agoAdopting Ubuntu-like date versioning was one proposal but not the one they ultimately went with. They instead went with a major version for every release like Chrome or Firefox. I think moving to a time based release was a good move but a major version per LTS might have reduced a lot of the apprehension around it.