Re: naming convention question
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.., unwholesome connotations in other English speaking parts of the world. Alex Would you care to enlighten us, please? (And not only Alex Americans, I still have Ukrainian citizenship, for example) Blush Oh, I couldn't. Umm, it kinda involves blood flow into porous muscular tissue, causing, umm, turgidity, and is, well, associated with male mammals, and is kinda liked to the kind of things that the american congress does not want us to talk about. manoj -- The whole earth is in jail and we're plotting this incredible jailbreak. Wavy Gravy Manoj Srivastava url:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Mobile, Alabama USAurl:http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/ -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: naming convention question
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 PROTECTED] .
Re: naming convention question
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 from accessing the development distributions. And yet on this list I regularly see people being instructed to get such-and-such from hamm or some such. I'll tell you what. Instead of complaining about the current system, why don't you propose a solution? Here are the design criteria: 1) Conceal development code from users and overzealous CD manufacturers. ... Just keep everything secret until it is ready for public release. After all, most people in the software world think it's a good idea. Or at least refrain from using the codenames outside the developer list. To repeat my previous proposal, call it unreleased-2.0 or something similar which makes it clear that you shouldn't mess with this unless you know what you are doing. When it is released, just add the symlinks as you would if it was called woody. Nothing will be harmed if the name unreleased-2.0 is allowed to hang around. Those in the know will understand that it is vestigial, while those who are not will have no reason to touch it. -- John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain. [EMAIL PROTECTED]Do with it what you will. Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind. Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: naming convention question
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 what is happening in the future releases and hence I would not like it to be top secret. ;) Well that's *my* opinion on the subject... Maybe, and for those who might be confused by the namings a README file that addresses this should be in place at the sites (well maybe it is already I don't know...) Regards, David PS. One further note... I would really prefer Web browsers such as Netscape to actually tell you where Symlinks point to (knowing it points to bo does help not wondering what is in bo or what is it for). But this is for Netscape to solve/improve... -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: naming convention question
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 posting is in the public domain. [EMAIL PROTECTED]Do with it what you will. Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind. Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: naming convention question
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) habit of calling me young man. To repeat my previous proposal, call it unreleased-2.0 or something similar which makes it clear that you shouldn't mess with this unless you know what you are doing. When it is released, just add the symlinks as you would if it was called woody. Nothing will be harmed if the name unreleased-2.0 is allowed to hang around. Those in the know will understand that it is vestigial, while those who are not will have no reason to touch it. Can't you see? If stable pointed to unreleased, it would make people confused. They would probably think that the Debian ftp site is screwed. They would go, never to return. I know I would. Antti-Juhani -- That is the true beginning of our end. ... All for your delight We are not here. (Peter Quince in William Shakespeare's /A Midsummer Night's Dream/) pgp5KweY6ARlm.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: naming convention question
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 confused. You have, then, this dubious distinction. This is essentially the point. As an end user I find the names confusing. It would help me as an end user if instead of posters saying :- I'm using package XYZ from bilbo(or whatever the codename of the release is) and problem such-and-such arises they would say :- I'm using package XYZ from the latest stable release etc.. I use stable version 1.1.16, I do not know what it's codename is or was and I couldn't give a flying fig to be honest. I'm not even sure if 1.1.16 is the correct number, I'd have to check the documentation. 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. Perhaps the name is supposed to be hmm from hmm do you think woody is a good name ?. An american, heh? It has some rather, ... umm.., unwholesome connotations in other English speaking parts of the world. Speaking as an Englishman, I'd never heard the term woody used in that context before. See how wonderful this list is, it not only helps you with Debian problems but sexual problems as well, now I've got these spots.. :-) Yup. Though of course, the general public knows stable, unstable, and Debian 1.1.3, for example. You don't *have* to know the names. Exactly, therefore why have names ? Forget I asked that :-), I can understand the reasons for names and the like, I just have problems dealing with them and trying to keep track of them, especially when a name can relate to several different release numbers. Surely the numbers are more important than the names and with the packages being dynamic even in 'stable' releases, then numbers assume even more importance. I also run 1.2 something or other which I've built via ftp (Yes I know it take ages but I got fed up with waiting for the CD which when it did arrive had 1.1.16 on it instead of 1.2 - but that's another story), every fortnight or so I run dselect and download upgraded packages. This means that I have the 'stable' release but my 'stable' release of 1.2 is possibly quite different from somebody elses 'stable' release of 1.2. What I'm aiming at here is that names are quite meaningless and numbers aren't that much better, however you can uniquely identify a system using numbers, you can't using names UNLESS you release a new name for the release whenever some package in it changes. Cheers Dave Restall debian/du-970724.tx debian-user@lists.debian.org +++ + Dave Restall[EMAIL PROTECTED] + + Tel +31 (0) 40 2756438 + +++ -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: naming convention question
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 release is) and problem such-and-such arises Dave they would say :- Dave I'm using package XYZ from the latest stable release etc.. I see your point. You are correct in the sense that just specifying a codename does not adequately specify which version of a package is being talked about (espescially when one is talking about the development versions, since the version numbers of packages are in a state of flux there). I generally say I am using version XYZ of package MMM. For the most part, when talking about a package, the version number of the package is important. When talking about releases, one uses numbers. Like Debian 1.3.1 rather than whatever it is called now (bo-updates??) Manoj Yup. Though of course, the general public knows stable, Manoj unstable, and Debian 1.1.3, for example. You don't *have* to Manoj know the names. Dave Exactly, therefore why have names ? Forget I asked that :-), I Dave can understand the reasons for names and the like, I just have Dave problems dealing with them and trying to keep track of them, Dave especially when a name can relate to several different release Dave numbers. Surely the numbers are more important than the names Dave and with the packages being dynamic even in 'stable' releases, Dave then numbers assume even more importance. You are correct. Stable releases should be identified by the numbers. The names are used while the release is under development (we have been burned once by an over-eager CD retailer, we really don't need that kind of PR), and an artifact of mirroring technology that make renaming directories at release a bad idea for the mirrors. Also, it does give us some freedom in version numbers of the distribution (we can slip in a version 1.4 next, or go to 2.0), which of course means little to the end users. Dave I also run 1.2 something or other which I've built via ftp (Yes Dave I know it take ages but I got fed up with waiting for the CD Dave which when it did arrive had 1.1.16 on it instead of 1.2 - but Dave that's another story), every fortnight or so I run dselect and Dave download upgraded packages. This means that I have the 'stable' Dave release but my 'stable' release of is possibly quite different Dave from somebody elses 'stable' release of 1.2. What I'm aiming at Dave here is that names are quite meaningless and numbers aren't that Dave much better, however you can uniquely identify a system using Dave numbers, you can't using names UNLESS you release a new name for Dave the release whenever some package in it changes. Quite so. Unfortunately, I think that the codenames offer enough technical benefits to the Debian support organizations that the (IMHO minor) irritation caused to the users is deemed acceptable. I, on behalf of the Debian developers, apologize for the inconvenience caused. manoj -- The only way for a reporter to look at a politician is down. H.L. Mencken Manoj Srivastava url:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Mobile, Alabama USAurl:http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/ -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: naming convention question
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's drop this thread. It is clear that nothing is being accomplished. -- John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain. [EMAIL PROTECTED]Do with it what you will. Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind. Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: naming convention question
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 maintainers need to use the names, but it is clear that you want to do so and are not about to be talked out of it. -- John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain. [EMAIL PROTECTED]Do with it what you will. Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind. Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: naming convention question
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 just changed. What do the names have to do with that? John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: naming convention question
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, and only number them when released. unreleased-1.3 and unreleased-2.0 would be more useful and less confusing. Maybe, but it makes life hard on mirror sites. Before we went to the current scheme, there was a time when the main directories were stable (i.e., released, ready to go, and in theory, unchanging), and unstable (i.e., a moving target, a future release, not yet fully ready). When unstable got renamed stable, all hell broke loose at mirror sites. Mirror software can't tell the difference between a renamed directory and a new directory with new files in it. So when unstable vanished and stable changed drastically, the mirror sites dutifully downloaded all the new stuff under stable (which was already under unstable, but the mirror sites couldn't tell), and then deleted the files it already had under unstable. This tied up a tremendous amount of network bandwidth, and everybody involved complained bitterly (and for good reason). Now we use symbolic links to manage the release names (stable currently points to bo, and unstable points to hamm). When we release hamm, stable will change to point to hamm, and the mirror sites only have to deal with one or two small symbolic link changes, not downloading the entire distribution again. Symbolic links are crucial for managing the distribution. A month ago or so, we had three distributions on ftp.debian.org: rex, bo , and hamm. Since hamm is bigger than bo, and bo was the first distribution to require 2 CD's to distribute, without symbolic links between the three distributions the whole mirror site would be over 1.5GB in size. By using symbolic links, we can usually eliminate a major chunk of that -- when a new distribution is created, it is initially populated with symbolic links to the old distribution (which makes the new distribution quick to mirror, and small in size), and as the packages are upgraded, the new distribution fills up. If we renamed the base directories (as we would when unreleased-1.3 became Debian-1.3), a lot of symbolic links would break. 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 the distribution. [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: One question though: Why's hamm called hamm/hamm/ on the ftp archives? What for? In addition to the main distributions (rex, hamm, bo) Debian has also packaged programs which don't meet our free software guidelines. Those are placed in the non-free and contrib directories, which is outside of rex or bo. When bo was nearing release, while rex was stable, some people complained that some of the non-free and contrib packages had dependencies on things in unstable. This was threatening to force people into using unstable when they wanted to remain in stable. So with hamm, it was decided to move non-free and contrib under hamm (in hamm/non-free and hamm/contrib) so that non-free packages that depended on hamm main packages could be kept separate from non-free packages that were safe to use with bo. what would have been the hamm main distribution became hamm/hamm. Offhand, I don't know why it wasn't hamm/main. -- Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our liberty depends upon the chaos and cacaphony of the unfettered speech the First Amendment protects. -- A.L.A. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: naming convention question
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, and only number them when released. unreleased-1.3 and unreleased-2.0 would be more useful and less confusing. Maybe, but it makes life hard on mirror sites. Before we went to the current scheme, there was a time when the main directories were stable (i.e., released, ready to go, and in theory, unchanging), and unstable (i.e., a moving target, a future release, not yet fully ready). When unstable got renamed stable, all hell broke loose at mirror sites. Mirror software can't tell the difference between a renamed directory and a new directory with new files in it. So when unstable vanished and stable changed drastically, the mirror sites dutifully downloaded all the new stuff under stable (which was already under unstable, but the mirror sites couldn't tell), and then deleted the files it already had under unstable. This tied up a tremendous amount of network bandwidth, and everybody involved complained bitterly (and for good reason). Now we use symbolic links to manage the release names (stable currently points to bo, and unstable points to hamm). When we release hamm, stable will change to point to hamm, and the mirror sites only have to deal with one or two small symbolic link changes, not downloading the entire distribution again. Symbolic links are crucial for managing the distribution. A month ago or so, we had three distributions on ftp.debian.org: rex, bo , and hamm. Since hamm is bigger than bo, and bo was the first distribution to require 2 CD's to distribute, without symbolic links between the three distributions the whole mirror site would be over 1.5GB in size. By using symbolic links, we can usually eliminate a major chunk of that -- when a new distribution is created, it is initially populated with symbolic links to the old distribution (which makes the new distribution quick to mirror, and small in size), and as the packages are upgraded, the new distribution fills up. If we renamed the base directories (as we would when unreleased-1.3 became Debian-1.3), a lot of symbolic links would break. 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 the distribution. [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: One question though: Why's hamm called hamm/hamm/ on the ftp archives? What for? In addition to the main distributions (rex, hamm, bo) Debian has also packaged programs which don't meet our free software guidelines. Those are placed in the non-free and contrib directories, which is outside of rex or bo. When bo was nearing release, while rex was stable, some people complained that some of the non-free and contrib packages had dependencies on things in unstable. This was threatening to force people into using unstable when they wanted to remain in stable. So with hamm, it was decided to move non-free and contrib under hamm (in hamm/non-free and hamm/contrib) so that non-free packages that depended on hamm main packages could be kept separate from non-free packages that were safe to use with bo. what would have been the hamm main distribution became hamm/hamm. Offhand, I don't know why it wasn't hamm/main. -- Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our liberty depends upon the chaos and cacaphony of the unfettered speech the First Amendment protects. -- A.L.A. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: naming convention question
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 good to choose names that don't reflect *anything*? -- John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain. [EMAIL PROTECTED]Do with it what you will. Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind. Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: naming convention question
-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 choose names that don't reflect the release status of the distribution. But why is it good to choose names that don't reflect *anything*? They do, they are the codename for the version, similar to the codenames that Microsoft or IBM use for their new products under development. The sequence (buzz, rex, bo, hamm) follows names of characters in the Pixar animated movie, Toy Story. 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. - -- |If you will practice being fictional for a while, Scott K. Ellis|you will understand that fictional [EMAIL PROTECTED]| characters are sometimes more real than |people with bodies and heartbeats. | -- Illusions -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBM9YphKCk2fENdzpVAQEA2QP/aoYYRkQZgWe7LO5bu/vAzvEhIcZpw5vo KCetbg9KF/4XO2Rf3thP8CNNffj9aXZ+3V35wPWYyrSpTGvkhjf39bmSH8U/N2jA +sxASLnHpP5edEu1sR90F8HoJvosXA7u0fzHeHocAjwOdiEi/RVbozZwPbvLDagW tX/VOPFO9G4= =0VRe -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: naming convention question
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 a good idea. Obscure code names are ok in closed development where the only people who need to know the names deal with them all day every day and so will learn them quickly. In open development, they are confusing. The sequence (buzz, rex, bo, hamm) follows names of characters in the Pixar animated movie, Toy Story. Cartoon character names are somehow supposed to be mnemonics for Debian releases? 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. Doesn't seem any more or less confusing than bo, rex, etc. -- John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain. [EMAIL PROTECTED]Do with it what you will. Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind. Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: naming convention question
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 for other reasons as well. Codes serve to prevent problems that occur when the proper name is used instead. Commercial codes aren't secret, but cut down on the time it takes to transmit information. Similarly, code names for software in development help keep different versions and products separate in the developers minds. In this case, code names are used to prevent problems which we've run into in the past, with people grabbing the wrong distributions, with thrashing mirrors, and so on. ...similar to the codenames that Microsoft... Oh. Well, if *Microsoft* does it, it *must* be a good idea. Obscure code names are ok in closed development where the only people who need to know the names deal with them all day every day and so will learn them quickly. In open development, they are confusing. To a large degree, there are only 2 or 4 names most Debian users need be aware of: stable and unstable, and possibly contrib and non-free. Two of these are symbolic links to the code-named versions. These -do not change- name, although they change in contents. Unstable was deliberately named that to -discourage- people from using it. When J. Random Linuxer comes to the Debian FTP site, we want him to look at stable or possibly Debian-1.3.1. If they are scared that unstable will crash their system (and at times, it will crash your system, if you aren't careful), and avoid it, then Debian won't end up looking bad for having systems that will crash your system. Yes, we want people to use unstable (be it buzz, rex, bo, hamm, or whatever the next code name is), because that way we can catch bugs before they end up in a released version. But we also want those that do to know what they are getting into -- that there are risks in using potentially buggy software. By choosing names that don't imply versioning or quality of release, that are intentionally meaningless, we effectively require people to go to an effort to use it, and that keeps people who aren't paying attention safe. I am not a Debian developer -- I have not submitted any packaged for the Debian system -- but I do know how fast info like the new codenames becomes known. Some names, like hamm, were the topic of discussion when they were chosen (as mentioned elsewhere, woody was thought of, but rejected). To a certain degree, Debian is a more open development system than the Linux Kernel. No single person is responsible for what goes into the system -- that is divided up amongst nearly 200 developers -- whereas with the kernel, Linus himself says yea or nay to every patch submitted. Out works-in-progress are open to all to look at or use, for good or worse. The sequence (buzz, rex, bo, hamm) follows names of characters in the Pixar animated movie, Toy Story. Cartoon character names are somehow supposed to be mnemonics for Debian releases? No, they are supposed to be names of Debian releases. Names don't necessarily mean anything about the object named. That you are named John tells me very little about you. So far, the only name I've seen you suggest was unreleased-1.3 and unreleased-2.0 for what is currently called bo and hamm. Can you come up with better names than bo and hamm that meets all of the following criteria: 1) the name cannot be changed once decided, since this will cause unwanted thrashing of mirror sites. this means: 1a) It can't refer to release status, since a change in release status would cause a change in the appropriate name. 1b) It can't refer to a date, since dates tend to be too variable in Debian anyway. 2) the name must not encourage people to use it directly, since we have run into problems in the past of people publishing releases that weren't ready for release, because the name made people think it was ready (the Debian-1.0 fiasco). This means that the name most definitely can't refer to -- Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our liberty depends upon the chaos and cacaphony of the unfettered speech the First Amendment protects. -- A.L.A. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: naming convention question
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 the distribution. jghasler But why is it good to choose names that don't reflect jghasler *anything*? a) So that no one makes any assumptions about the release, apart from what the symlinks say b) Because we feel the names do reflect something (not necessarily technical), and this bit of whimsy pleases my muse. c) why not? d) We like Toy story, Pixar, and our fearless leader e) We had other pressing concerns than endlessly arguing about names f) just because. manoj -- No matter how much you do, you'll never do enough. Manoj Srivastava url:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Mobile, Alabama USAurl:http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/ -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: naming convention question
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. Gak! A hit! A palpable hit! jghasler Obscure code names are ok in closed development where the jghasler only people who need to know the names deal with them all jghasler day every day and so will learn them quickly. In open jghasler development, they are confusing. 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 confused. You have, then, this dubious distinction. The sequence (buzz, rex, bo, hamm) follows names of characters in the Pixar animated movie, Toy Story. jghasler Cartoon character names are somehow supposed to be mnemonics jghasler for Debian releases? Yup. Though of course, the general public knows stable, unstable, and Debian 1.1.3, for example. You don't *have* to know the names. 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 american, heh? It has some rather, ... umm.., unwholesome connotations in other English speaking parts of the world. manoj -- It's curtains for you, Mighty Mouse! This gun is so futuristic that even *I* don't know how it works! from Ralph Bakshi's Mighty Mouse Manoj Srivastava url:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Mobile, Alabama USAurl:http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/ -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: naming convention question
[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? Does Rhapsody, Memphis or Warp say anything or mean anything about operating systems? Yet they are names used respectively by Apple, Microsoft and IBM to name releases of their respective operating systems. Are they hiding any secrets? No... They're just names of products. 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. ...similar to the codenames that Microsoft... Oh. Well, if *Microsoft* does it, it *must* be a good idea. Not that this cheap shot needs a response, but since most of the software industry uses codenames for their projects and/or products, I'd say most people in the software world think it's a good idea. Obscure code names are ok in closed development where the only people who need to know the names deal with them all day every day and so will learn them quickly. In open development, they are confusing. And yet all the trade mags spout off about the internal code names of operating systems from other companies. I'd say people aren't too confused about that. Not to mention that the codenames used in Debian are supposed to keep people away from accessing the development distributions. There are obvious links to the released distribution, whether it's stable or Debian-1.3.1. The sequence (buzz, rex, bo, hamm) follows names of characters in the Pixar animated movie, Toy Story. Cartoon character names are somehow supposed to be mnemonics for Debian releases? Why not? The Engineering computers at my university were named after Mathematicians, the first year computer lab machines were named after star trek characters, our computers where I work are named after mythical characters? What's the difference? 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. Doesn't seem any more or less confusing than bo, rex, etc. Think about it. In a lot of Western countries, (not to offend anyone, but) getting a woody has other conotations. Personally I think if Disney can use it, we can us it, but c'est la vie. I'll tell you what. Instead of complaining about the current system, why don't you propose a solution? Here are the design criteria: 1) Conceal development code from users and overzealous CD manufacturers. 2) Not cause undue stress on the mirrors (i.e. the directory in which a version is kept cannot change names) 3) Keep the design simple Behan -- Behan Webster mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] +1-613-224-7547 http://www.verisim.com/ -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: naming convention question
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 american, heh? It has some rather, ... umm.., unwholesome connotations in other English speaking parts of the world. Hi. Would you care to enlighten us, please? (And not only Americans, I still have Ukrainian citizenship, for example) Thank you. Alex Y. manoj -- It's curtains for you, Mighty Mouse! This gun is so futuristic that even *I* don't know how it works! from Ralph Bakshi's Mighty Mouse Manoj Srivastava url:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Mobile, Alabama USAurl:http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/ -- _ _( )_ ( (o___ +---+ | _ 7 |Alexander Yukhimets| \()| http://pages.nyu.edu/~aqy6633/ | / \ \ +---+ -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: naming convention question
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] .
Re: naming convention question
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 the distribution was downloaded and sold on CD. 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 released. The current naming schema we are using is the names of characters from the Pixar computer animated feature film Toy Story. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . -- Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our liberty depends upon the chaos and cacaphony of the unfettered speech the First Amendment protects. -- A.L.A. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: naming convention question
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] .
Re: naming convention question
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 released. The current naming schema we are using is the names of characters from the Pixar computer animated feature film Toy Story. unreleased-1.3 and unreleased-2.0 would be more useful and less confusing. John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: naming convention question
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 unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
