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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-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
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
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
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
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.
[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
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
What is bo? hamm? Could someone explain these naming conventions to me,
please.
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
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] .
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
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] .
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
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
27 matches
Mail list logo
