Re: Name suggestion
Hello, > Witness a post of mine on Monday: "Upgraded to unstable, now unstable" ;-) Mind you, the problem was actually in "broken", I mean, "frozen". Jiri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
RE: Name suggestion
Ho 'bout aleph, bet, gimmee! -Original Message- From: Ryan King [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 03, 1998 2:21 PM To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: Name suggestion >>Joe Emenaker wrote: >> >> In fact, it has just occurred to me that we could have named them "alpha", >> "beta", and "release" instead of "unstable", "frozen", and "stable". >> >David Coe Wrote >Please don't. "Alpha" (unfortunately) is already ambiguous >(thanks to DEC) ;-). Who says version phase letters have to be Greek? We could do "Aleph", "Beth", "Release" for that oh-so-Hebrew flavor. -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null
Re: Name suggestion
>>Joe Emenaker wrote: >> >> In fact, it has just occurred to me that we could have named them "alpha", >> "beta", and "release" instead of "unstable", "frozen", and "stable". >> >David Coe Wrote >Please don't. "Alpha" (unfortunately) is already ambiguous >(thanks to DEC) ;-). Who says version phase letters have to be Greek? We could do "Aleph", "Beth", "Release" for that oh-so-Hebrew flavor.
Re: Name suggestion
Joe Emenaker wrote: > > In fact, it has just occurred to me that we could have named them "alpha", > "beta", and "release" instead of "unstable", "frozen", and "stable". > Please don't. "Alpha" (unfortunately) is already ambiguous (thanks to DEC) ;-). -- David Coe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] R & D and Support +1-410-489-9521 Overlord, Inc. http://www.overlord.com
Re: Name suggestion
> 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
Re: Name suggestion
>> ... I suggest >> that a fourth stage be created between unstable and frozen. I would call >> this "broken". [ snip ] >Witness a post of mine on Monday: "Upgraded to unstable, now unstable" ;-) Well, it has always caused a little confusion (for me and the others that I have introduced to Debian) that "unstable" doesn't mean that the software, itself, is volatile, but that the version numbers of the packages are (relative to the other dists) not as constant. Personally, I think a better choice of nomenclature could have been chosen. "stable" and "unstable" are just too ambiguous as to what they could mean. In fact, it has just occurred to me that we could have named them "alpha", "beta", and "release" instead of "unstable", "frozen", and "stable". It would be nice if there were some distinction between the things that have *just* been uploaded and not really had a couple of days of trial on a variety of configurations... versus the ones that have passed the "initial inspection". So, you could have one called "latest", "untested", "still-twitching", or whatever. I guess packages would be moved from "incoming" into "latest". If they weren't replaced by a succeeding version within, say, 4 days, then it would be moved to "alpha". With something like this, people would be able to update their systems from "alpha", "beta", and "release", and they'd still be fairly immune from that libstdc++ problem (provided that the maintainer caught it and fixed it within the holding period of 4 days or whatever it would be). - Joe
Re: Name suggestion
On Wed, 2 Dec 1998, George Bonser wrote: > > I have noticed that Debian rolls unstable to frozen and then to stable in > its release cycle. In order to more accurately reflect reality, I suggest > that a fourth stage be created between unstable and frozen. I would call > this "broken". A release candidate would roll from unstable to broken and > in this way, when someone tries to upgrade to it and it breaks their > system, it will not be any great surprise ... "I just upgraded to broken > and now my system is broken...oh, nevermind." Witness a post of mine on Monday: "Upgraded to unstable, now unstable" ;-) Sanjeev "Ghane" Gupta Tel: +91(11) 6941831, 6946619 Eurolink Systems LtdFax: +91(11) 6943732 New Delhi, India email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Eurolink doesn't pay me to speak for it, so I don't Old age is not an accomplishment, nor youth a sin
Re: Name suggestion
On 2 Dec, George Bonser wrote: > > I have noticed that Debian rolls unstable to frozen and then to stable in > its release cycle. In order to more accurately reflect reality, I suggest > that a fourth stage be created between unstable and frozen. I would call > this "broken". A release candidate would roll from unstable to broken and > in this way, when someone tries to upgrade to it and it breaks their > system, it will not be any great surprise ... "I just upgraded to broken > and now my system is broken...oh, nevermind." Once broken is no longer > broken and will actually work, it should then go to frozen ... where it > should actually be frozen. If it becomes broken again after being frozen > it should be moved back to broken. It would really be nice if frozen > really ment frozen too. > > In other words, once a candidate moves out of unstable, once it is no > longer called unstable ... people do not expect it be unstable. At least > if it is moved from unstable to broken, there will be no surprises. Either > than or call it unstable-frozen rather than frozen. Broken is more > accurate and shorter though. > > > George Bonser > > The Linux "We're never going out of business" sale at an FTP site near you! > > I think it should go broken -> unstable -> frozen -> stable. It would seem to me that unstable -> broken represents a backwards move. chrsi
Re: Name suggestion
George Bonser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I have noticed that Debian rolls unstable to frozen and then to stable in > its release cycle. In order to more accurately reflect reality, I suggest > that a fourth stage be created between unstable and frozen. I would call > this "broken". I think "severly [EMAIL PROTECTED] up" would be a better name than just broken. Or how about "broken and we might still add a new version of X windows, the kernel, and egcs so why don't you keep asking". Thanks for making me laugh. Later, Dale -- + finger for pgp public key -+ | Dale E. Martin | Clifton Labs, Inc. | Senior Computer Engineer| | [EMAIL PROTECTED]|http://www.clifton-labs.com | +--+
Re: Name suggestion
George Bonser wrote: > > I have noticed that Debian rolls unstable to frozen and then to stable in > its release cycle. In order to more accurately reflect reality, I suggest > that a fourth stage be created between unstable and frozen. I would call > this "broken". A release candidate would roll from unstable to broken and > in this way, when someone tries to upgrade to it and it breaks their > system, it will not be any great surprise ... "I just upgraded to broken > and now my system is broken...oh, nevermind." Once broken is no longer > broken and will actually work, it should then go to frozen ... where it > should actually be frozen. If it becomes broken again after being frozen > it should be moved back to broken. It would really be nice if frozen > really ment frozen too. > > In other words, once a candidate moves out of unstable, once it is no > longer called unstable ... people do not expect it be unstable. At least > if it is moved from unstable to broken, there will be no surprises. Either > than or call it unstable-frozen rather than frozen. Broken is more > accurate and shorter though. Would we be forbidden from uploading working packages to Broken? ;) -Mitch (Thanks - that was a funny post... you _are_ kidding, right?) pgpTCjijWSs3a.pgp Description: PGP signature
