> > And choosing a simple, consistent, and comprehensible release naming scheme
> > is such an issue. Hambone, bopeep, 1.3.1, and now revision 2... all
> > very confusing. I've been trying to convince the people in the seul
> > project to use Debian: they think Debian is flaky. I like Debian. I use
> > Debian. I'd contribute if I had the resources. But I'm beginning to agree
> > with them.
>
> Good point, John. It seems that the sugar-coated explanation still doesn't
> taste very good. Hey, users who are listening - Debian 1.3.3 is out but
> it's still called 1.3.1 so nobody who buys those CD sets will feel
> inferior? We need someone with a Ph.D. in policy analysis to convince us
> that it really does taste good. Why don't we just call it Debian GNU/Linux
> 1.3.1.your_lucky_number?
You're correct that Debian has had trouble "doing things right the first time",
but I don't think this is a unique problem. I just think that Debian tries
to fix it too quickly and thus has to fix it again and again.
Let's make sure that we have a plan at least most people can agree on before
we implement it. That will help a lot with the "flaky" problem.
As for "1.3.3", as V.P.Engineering, I've authorized _nothing_ since the
release of 1.3.1. What is in bo-updates are just candidates for the
next release that the testing group has to approve. Prehaps I was
mistaken in arguing for the bo-updates directory to be made public. I
thought it would help ensure packages were better tested, but it seems
to just be adding to the confusion of it all.
Brian
( [EMAIL PROTECTED] )
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're not.
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
