There was discussion on Q&A 88 that implied that OTA numbering was problematic. Why is the current simple numerical progression thought to be difficult?
dobey last edited by
It's not that it is difficult. It's that it is inconsistent and confusing, when you consider we have multiple update channels, across many devices, where the build numbers are not synchronized.
Also, specifically calling the stable updates OTA-N implies that updates on other channels aren't OTAs (which they are, because OTA simply means over the air).
We've already moved to date based tags for the rc and devel channels (and edge too I presume), so for sake of consistency it makes more sense to also move the stable channel to that, and not call them OTA-N.
I also think we should rename our channels, because the current naming is a bit confusing and the names don't quite reflect what they are exactly.
@cliffcoggin I don't know about others, but I find the two different version numbers, e.g.
Ubuntu touch 12 vs OTA-14 slightly confusing.
@dobey Thanks, that explains the difficulty. I only use stable channel hence I did not know the other channels had a different system. Nor did I know what OTA stood for.