Antony T Curtis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Antoine Beaupre (LMC)" wrote:
>>
>> Go for RUTABAGA. It's cute.
>
>We cannot use -APPLE, -APRICOT, -CHERRY nor -ORANGE or some company
>would get very sour...
>
>But there is -BANANA, -PEAR, -GRAPE, -NECTARINE, -TOMATO, -MELON,
>-STRAWBERRY, -RASPB
On Fri, Aug 03, 2001 at 12:51:30PM -0500, Mike Meyer wrote:
> David Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> types:
> > On Fri, Aug 03, 2001 at 09:54:02AM -0400, Bob K wrote:
> > > I like -BEET. It's short, means nothing, and is red. What more could
> > > you ask for? :P
> > Suggest -FOO has a long standing me
On Fri, Aug 03, 2001 at 09:54:02AM -0400, Bob K wrote:
>
> I like -BEET. It's short, means nothing, and is red. What more could
> you ask for? :P
Suggest -FOO has a long standing meaning of nonsense in computer lingo.
Or -FOOBAR.
--
David Kelly N4HHE, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
==
On Fri, Aug 03, 2001 at 10:00:49AM -0400, Antoine Beaupre (LMC) wrote:
> Go for RUTABAGA. It's cute.
>
> Besides, Debian does it and everybody likes it. It allows us to pick
> names in honor of dead people. Yay. ;)
I like this, and vote for -POUL for this branch, to forever pay
homage to a rec
Fri$
Not to beat a -deadhorse, but here are my $.02
The only sensible suggestion I've seen so far is 4_3_x_RELEASE. The reason
is that all the proposals I've seen (with the exception of the above and
4_3_RELEASEplX, which is not lexically bigger than 4_3_RELEASE) is merely a
cosmetic change wit
Why not 4.4.1-RELEASE, 4.4.2-RELEASE, etc
It's simple, to the point. Implies upgrades. Allows you to quickly determine
exactly how current a particular system is with regards to patches, and
follows long-standing conventions.
Just my $.02
-Bill
Andrew Boothman wrote:
>
> [Boy do I wish I hadn'
On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 12:35:44PM -0700, Chad R. Larson wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 09:47:32AM -0400, Jonathan Chen wrote:
> > 1) Have the cvs scripts add the latest commit date/time to a version.h
> >everytime a commit occurs in a branch. Display/use it accordingly.
>
> I suggested t
Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> At 7:07 PM -0700 8/2/01, Chad R. Larson wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 03, 2001, Andrew Boothman wrote:
>> > I prefer -SECURITY, because it makes it clear this is the
>> > branch dedicated to security fixes and nothing else.
>>
>> Yes, but then the newbies would think this w
On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 09:58:44AM -0400, Bill Moran wrote:
> Why not 4.4.1-RELEASE, 4.4.2-RELEASE, etc
> It's simple, to the point. Implies upgrades. Allows you to quickly determine
> exactly how current a particular system is with regards to patches, and
> follows long-standing conventions.
>
