> > it's important to note that the present branding scheme > (unstable / testing / stable) is certainly ACCURATE from the > point-of-view of the programmers and script-writers -- but for > the public-at-large, those terms seem MYSTERIOUS and engender > frequent explanations and lectures on this very list (enough to > warrant a FAQ, which a debian-newbie is unlikely to locate or to > read). often it seems like we have to dip into DAMAGE CONTROL > MODE simply because a newbie didn't "grok" the release naming > scheme. > > so maybe a "public-oriented name scheme" is worthy of > consideration. that is, we could cautiously and considerately > select appropriate names for the releases that make sense to the > public at large, and: > > 1) not have to answer this question again! > 2) improve dissemination of debian as folks are more > likely to get the release they really want > 3) watch the ranks grow and grow and grow...
> > the idea would be to pick names that will make (appropriate) > sense to people who are NOT intimately invovled in the project. > by all means, keep the fun code names (slink, potato, woody, > sarge, sid...) behind-the-scenes, of course. :) > > after brainstorming, of course, consideration of multilingual > translations would be important; also, beware of terms easily > warped into derogatory forms by "enemy camps" (think "marketing" > and "spin"). but first, we need to gather all ideas, even ones > that may seem silly. > > comments welcome. I think the names are just fine. The code names are great and the debian Names (Stable, Testing, Unstable) are as they should be. If they are changed, I think we would have more questions asking about the naming scheme. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
