On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 14:32:34 -0500 "James A. Treacy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 07:53:25PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: > > Hi, > > > > It is apparent that the term "distribution" is overloaded with meanings. > > We use it for the /distrib/ web page, and mention it in several other > > places, meaning at least two things. This is confusing for the newbies and > > needlessly requires thinking from those who aren't newbies ;) > > > > So, I think the /distrib/ page should be renamed. Not the URL (that's too > > much work :), but the title and the links, including the navbar image. > > > We should start by listing the terms we use and how we will use them. > > Instead of giving terms and what I think they should mean, I will list > the items we need words for and people can have fun putting words to > them. :) > > - 2.2r3, 2.2r4, etc
I believe these are called point releases. Perhaps the 'r' standing for 'release' is misleading; perhpas it should be a 'p' or '.'? > - the versions for each of the architectures (i386, arm, powerpc, etc) I think these can safely be called architectures. However, what happens with different kernels? perhaps we should specify: architecture/kernel? > - stable, unstable, sid, testing (do these need a different term than > 2.2r3, 2.2r4, etc? At first glance you might think so, but do you > really want people saying '2.2r3 release of debian released'?) Personally I think these should be called releases, and instead of saying 'Debian xxx release released' we should say 'Debian xxx moved to stable'. Is there policy on this? > - distributing debian (the current title of /distrib/ is > 'Distribution'. Ugh) hmmm...*searches through thesaurus*: acquisition; source; supply; suppliers? > (Anything else we need a term for?) > > One thing that would help is having a debian dictionary page. Key words > could have links to the appropriate entry in the dictionary the first > time they are used on pages for general consumption. This would have the > added benefit of forcing the translators to think carefully of how they > translate some key words and to then translate them consistently. Who _should_ be naming things? Do we need a MS like marketing division? One name for the techies and another for the website? or just let the people who deal with the public decide? Matthew Bell
