On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 08:51:18AM +0800, Yao Wei (?????????) wrote: > How about getting rid of codenames altogether? Like we use unstable > for unstable, experimental for experimental as it already is, no > testing and buster but debian11, debian12, etc. > > Although it is eliminating some funs but it is much more predictable > and simple to remember. I also confused squeeze with stretch. >
By using symlinks at the apt repositories we can have both. debian10 symlinks to buster debian11 symlinks to bulleye bookworm symlinks to debian12 On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 09:38:57AM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 13:11:09 +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > > > > I guess only (most?) Debian contributors and hardcore Debian users > > remember the order of the codenames and their mappings to current > > stable/oldstable/testing and to numeric versions. > > Yes, exactly. This is a frequent request from those of my colleagues > who mostly use other distributions, but occasionally have to interact > with Debian, and can't remember whether stretch is older or newer than > jessie. This is going to be particularly bad after the buster release, > when buster and bullseye are current, and even worse after the bullseye > release, when buster, bullseye and bookworm will all be relevant. > > Ubuntu is easier in some ways (because the alphabetical codenames go in > a logical sequence) but harder in others (because the distinction between > LTS and non-LTS isn't obvious from the codenames). > > Back when the release team decided on a per-release basis whether this > was a "major" or "minor" release, we had the excuse that we had to use > a codename for testing because we didn't know whether etch would be > released as Debian 3.2 or Debian 4.0; but now that we've decided that > every release is a major version, we can predict well in advance that > Debian 10 will be followed by Debian 11 and Debian 12, so there doesn't > seem a whole lot of point in obfuscating it. So true > With more emphasis on the version numbers, my non-Debian colleagues would > still have to learn (or look up) which release is the current stable, > but given that information they would immediately also know which release > was the previous one (subtract 1) and which release is under development > (add 1). > > Referring to testing in speech/writing as something like Debian 10 > alphas/betas/pre-releases (to express that it *will be* Debian 10, but > it isn't really Debian 10 *yet*) might make more sense to non-Debian > people, and might have the desirable side-effect of having more Debian > contributors get the message that it's a means to an end (making > the next release happen) rather than a product in its own right. In > machine-readable contexts like sources.list it's probably best to use > something like debian10 (or deb10, as in stable updates' version strings, > or just 10) so that it doesn't have to change on release day. > > smcv > Groeten Geert Stappers P.S. rolling symlinks to testing tumbleweed symlinks to testing -- Leven en laten leven
