On 12/16/2012 08:35 AM, deadalnix wrote:
On Sunday, 16 December 2012 at 02:03:34 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote:
You don't need to repeat your self, you need to expand on your points. Joseph
has already requested that you give specifics of your objection, you have
explained why the situation is different but not what needs to be different.
This is completely backward, but I'll do it anyway. But first, let me explain
why it is backward.
You are using distro's versionning system as a base of reflexion. But such
system is made to achieve different goal than a programming language. I
shouldn't be here explaining why this is wrong, you should be here explaining me
why it can be applied anyway.
And once again, you're failing to address the specifics of my proposal, simply
saying "A distro and a programming language have different requirements."
Because while some of my proposals were inspired by some of the ways in which
Ubuntu manages its releases, and share some of the same terminology, _they are
not the same_. In fact the only thing that it really shares with Ubuntu is the
idea that the support and maintenance periods for long-term "stable" versions
should overlap so that users who require that stable base have adequate time to
upgrade.
That's useful for _any_ software no matter what the purpose.
So once again I'd ask you to engage with the specifics of my proposal -- because
from what I've read so far, it seems like the _only_ source of your objections
is the use of the words "Ubuntu" and "Long-Term Support", and that if I'd
written the same proposal without those words, you'd have given a different
response.
