manoj writes:
> I, on behalf of the Debian developers, apologize for the inconvenience
> caused.
Thank you for admitting that the inconvenience exists. Perhaps the
developers could make an effort to avoid using the names outside the
developer list? It's not clear to me that anyone but the site m
Antti-Juhani writes:
> No. The name of the current product is bo.
Then why is it not being labeled and advertised as such?
> If stable pointed to unreleased, it would make people confused.
Why would casual visitors ever notice that "stable" and "internal-1.3.1"
point to the same directory?
Let'
Hi,
>>"Dave" == Dave Restall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dave> This is essentially the point. As an end user I find the names
Dave> confusing. It would help me as an end user if instead of
Dave> posters saying :-
Dave> "I'm using package XYZ from bilbo(or whatever the codename of
Dave> the rele
Hi,
firstly :-
Sorry about perpetuating this thread.
Secondly :-
Thanks for a well cool system to all the people who made it possible
whatever the name is :-)
> I have yet to hear a developer say they are confused. In fact,
> this is the first time I have heard *anyone* say they are
>
On Jul 23, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
> I thought that the name of the current "product" was Debian 1.31.
No. The name of the current product is bo. It is also known as Debian
1.3.1 (there is no such thing as Debian 1.31). It's like my name is
Antti-Juhani, but some people have the (irritating) habi
Robert D. Hilliard writes:
> Another criteria for code names - they should be short enough to be quick
> and easy to type, thus minimizing typos. IMNSHO hamm is at least one
> letter too long.
Ah. Well, that's easy, then. Just call them "a", "b", "c",
--
John HaslerThis po
Well since this seems to be such a "hot topic" ;) I felt I should give my
opinion.
Well here it goes
I think the current naming convention is fine. :-)
Of course the symlinks *have* to be there to make things clear to everyone.
And despite not being a developer I still love to know w
> How about Taurus, Accord, or Jetta? Do they mean anything about cars?
> No... They're just names of products.
> It's the same for Debian.
I thought that the name of the current "product" was Debian 1.31.
> Not to mention that the codenames used in Debian are supposed to keep
> people away fro
Another criteria for code names - they should be short enough to
be quick and easy to type, thus minimizing typos. IMNSHO hamm is at
least one letter too long.
Bob
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PRO
Hi,
>>"Alex" == Alex Yukhimets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> There was some brief discussion of calling Debian 2.0 "woody",
>> after the main character of the movie, but we quickly realized the
>> possible unwanted confusion that would result.
>> An american, heh? It has some rather, ... umm..
> >> There was some brief discussion of calling Debian 2.0 "woody",
> >> after the main character of the movie, but we quickly realized the
> >> possible unwanted confusion that would result.
>
> jghasler> Doesn't seem any more or less confusing than "bo", "rex",
> jghasler> etc.
>
> An a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I wrote:
> > But why is it good to choose names that don't reflect *anything*?
>
> Scott K. Ellis writes:
> > They do, they are the codename for the version,...
>
> What secrets are being protected by this code?
And since when does a name have to reflect anything?
Hi,
>>"jghasler" == jghasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
jghasler> What secrets are being protected by this code?
If I told you that, I would have to kill you ;-)
>> ...similar to the codenames that Microsoft...
jghasler> Oh. Well, if *Microsoft* does it, it *must* be a good idea.
Hi,
>>"jghasler" == jghasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
jghasler> Buddha Buck writes:
>> Thus there are two good reasons why the distribution _name_ (be it
>> rex or bo or unreleased-1.3) shouldn't change.
>> Because of that, it is good to choose names that don't reflect the
>> release status of
> I wrote:
> > But why is it good to choose names that don't reflect *anything*?
>
> Scott K. Ellis writes:
> > They do, they are the codename for the version,...
>
> What secrets are being protected by this code?
None. Codes don't exist just to make things secret. Code names can
and do exist
I wrote:
> But why is it good to choose names that don't reflect *anything*?
Scott K. Ellis writes:
> They do, they are the codename for the version,...
What secrets are being protected by this code?
> ...similar to the codenames that Microsoft...
Oh. Well, if *Microsoft* does it, it *must* be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 22 Jul 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Buddha Buck writes:
> > Thus there are two good reasons why the distribution _name_ (be it rex or
> > bo or unreleased-1.3) shouldn't change.
>
> Nor did I suggest that it should.
>
> > Because of that, it is good to c
Buddha Buck writes:
> Thus there are two good reasons why the distribution _name_ (be it rex or
> bo or unreleased-1.3) shouldn't change.
Nor did I suggest that it should.
> Because of that, it is good to choose names that don't reflect the
> release status of the distribution.
But why is it goo
John Hasler writes:
> Buddha Buck writes:
> > It was seen that one reason for this was that someone looking at the FTP
> > site, seeing a directory with a numbered version would think that that
> > version was ready for release. A policy decision was made to name
> > releases while in development,
John Hasler writes:
> Buddha Buck writes:
> > It was seen that one reason for this was that someone looking at the FTP
> > site, seeing a directory with a numbered version would think that that
> > version was ready for release. A policy decision was made to name
> > releases while in development,
I wrote:
> "unreleased-1.3" and "unreleased-2.0" would be more useful and less
> confusing.
Rick Hawkins writes:
> but not nearly so cool :)
If you say so. I just find them obscure.
> besides, this way they stay buzz, bo, hamm, etc. after release, and the
> symlinks for stable & unstable are ju
> "unreleased-1.3" and "unreleased-2.0" would be more useful and less
> confusing.
but not nearly so cool :)
besides, this way they stay buzz, bo, hamm, etc. after release, and the
symlinks for stable & unstable are just changed.
rick
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word
Buddha Buck writes:
> It was seen that one reason for this was that someone looking at the FTP
> site, seeing a directory with a numbered version would think that that
> version was ready for release. A policy decision was made to name
> releases while in development, and only number them when rel
Having missed the movies I missed the joke. Thanks for the explanation.
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
> What is bo? hamm? Could someone explain these naming conventions to me,
> please.
>
Bo is a code name for the Debian 1.3 release. Hamm is a code name for
the Debian 2.0 release, currently in development.
Some time ago, Debian ran into a problem when a not-quite-ready
development version of
> What is bo? hamm? Could someone explain these naming conventions to me,
> please.
Look at where Bruce Perens works, and think about children's movies . .
.
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
26 matches
Mail list logo
