> I think it should go broken -> unstable -> frozen -> stable. It would > seem to me that unstable -> broken represents a backwards move.
I disagree. The unstable distribution is not necessarily broken. The frozen distribution _is_ broken most of the time, otherwise it would be the stable one; the only reason not to make the frozen distro stable yet is usually a number of bugs. I really think `broken' is much clearer to potential users. Therefore I would prefer the name `broken' to `frozen'. But I think there is another stage that might earn its own name: if the distro has only just become stable, usually some installation issues have to be ironed out. I propose to call this the `tender' distribution. It should then go `stable' after the official CD has proven to work `in the wild'. While the unstable distribution becomes broken, the stable one has reached a stadium that we could proudly call `robust'. unstable -> broken -> tender -> stable -> robust I feel this scheme might benefit from some refinement, but I suppose it could do for the time being. Eric -- E.L. Meijer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | tel. office +31 40 2472189 Eindhoven Univ. of Technology | tel. lab. +31 40 2475032 Lab. for Catalysis and Inorg. Chem. (TAK) | tel. fax +31 40 2455054
