Simon Jakesch (simon_jake...@dell.com) wrote: > I know it's fun to come up with branch names, however, I don't think they're > very helpful to people that aren't involved on a day to day basis. Maybe I am > missing something, but why can't we just stick to version numbers. Pebbles > would be 1.x branch, we just released 1.6.0 and are going to release 1.6.1 > soon. Both of those are children of the 1.6.x branch. The work on Crowbar 2 > happens on the 2.x branch. > In my opinion that strategy is a lot clearer than using code names, that just > means only insiders know how elefante, betty, fred, fledermaus, pebbles and > mesa align chronologically.
I sort of agree but I think it's fine to give each release a nickname as long as it's also given a release number. The number makes the ordering clear to outsiders, and the nickname keeps insiders happy, since assigning names seems to fit how most of our brains work (presumably because we didn't evolve from cavemen who called each other "1" / "2" etc.) This double scheme seems to work very well with Ubuntu, for example. Although many other distributions do just fine without the nicknames, of course :-) BTW if we were sticking strictly to the family tree rules then Roxy is the next generation from Pebbles so should be saved for 2.0, not a minor 1.6.x release :-p But we'll run out of Flintstones names pretty soon either way ... _______________________________________________ Crowbar mailing list Crowbar@dell.com https://lists.us.dell.com/mailman/listinfo/crowbar For more information: http://crowbar.github.com/
