> > Sure he did, but in the context of naming a concern is easy to respond to > with > a counter argument. For example it makes the other branches look like > they're > not subject to testing.
Perhaps, I was unclear. I think he raised a valid concern about the "stable" name, but that does not mean I support "testing". Now you'll stay but that's not true and come up with > another counter argument, and so on and so on. This is the business of > naming, > and sometimes there's just no perfect naming. > I was now thinking of something like "release-candidate", but it seems to be more than that, so perhaps a clear branch name would become long enough (and hence inconvenient) to precisely to specify it. So, I agree unless someone comes up with a good name (only for the future now). :) > While I'm personally also not 100% happy with the chosen names, I think > that > they'll do the job just fine. > Yes, me neither, but the world has to move on now. :-) > Please re-read what Lars wrote. I think he's right there. I was at no any point looking from the Linux distributions angle as I do not know how exactly Debian, Ubuntu or other disitributions work from this point view. However, I have to accept and respect the decision taken because I cannot come up with a precise name ether. Laszlo
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development