Re: Name suggestion

1998-12-04 Thread Jiri Baum
Hello, > Witness a post of mine on Monday: "Upgraded to unstable, now unstable" ;-) Mind you, the problem was actually in "broken", I mean, "frozen". Jiri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

RE: Name suggestion

1998-12-03 Thread AJArmstrong
Ho 'bout aleph, bet, gimmee! -Original Message- From: Ryan King [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 03, 1998 2:21 PM To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: Name suggestion >>Joe Emenaker wrote: >> >> In fact, it has just occurred to me that w

Re: Name suggestion

1998-12-03 Thread Ryan King
>>Joe Emenaker wrote: >> >> In fact, it has just occurred to me that we could have named them "alpha", >> "beta", and "release" instead of "unstable", "frozen", and "stable". >> >David Coe Wrote >Please don't. "Alpha" (unfortunately) is already ambiguous >(thanks to DEC) ;-). Who says version ph

Re: Name suggestion

1998-12-03 Thread David Coe
Joe Emenaker wrote: > > In fact, it has just occurred to me that we could have named them "alpha", > "beta", and "release" instead of "unstable", "frozen", and "stable". > Please don't. "Alpha" (unfortunately) is already ambiguous (thanks to DEC) ;-). -- David Coe mailto:[EMAIL PR

Re: Name suggestion

1998-12-03 Thread E.L. Meijer \(Eric\)
> I think it should go broken -> unstable -> frozen -> stable. It would > seem to me that unstable -> broken represents a backwards move. I disagree. The unstable distribution is not necessarily broken. The frozen distribution _is_ broken most of the time, otherwise it would be the stable one;

Re: Name suggestion

1998-12-03 Thread Joe Emenaker
>> ... I suggest >> that a fourth stage be created between unstable and frozen. I would call >> this "broken". [ snip ] >Witness a post of mine on Monday: "Upgraded to unstable, now unstable" ;-) Well, it has always caused a little confusion (for me and the others that I have introduced to Deb

Re: Name suggestion

1998-12-03 Thread Sanjeev Gupta
On Wed, 2 Dec 1998, George Bonser wrote: > > I have noticed that Debian rolls unstable to frozen and then to stable in > its release cycle. In order to more accurately reflect reality, I suggest > that a fourth stage be created between unstable and frozen. I would call > this "broken". A release

Re: Name suggestion

1998-12-02 Thread wax_man
On 2 Dec, George Bonser wrote: > > I have noticed that Debian rolls unstable to frozen and then to stable in > its release cycle. In order to more accurately reflect reality, I suggest > that a fourth stage be created between unstable and frozen. I would call > this "broken". A release candidate

Re: Name suggestion

1998-12-02 Thread Dale E. Martin
George Bonser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I have noticed that Debian rolls unstable to frozen and then to stable in > its release cycle. In order to more accurately reflect reality, I suggest > that a fourth stage be created between unstable and frozen. I would call > this "broken". I think "s

Re: Name suggestion

1998-12-02 Thread Mitch Blevins
George Bonser wrote: > > I have noticed that Debian rolls unstable to frozen and then to stable in > its release cycle. In order to more accurately reflect reality, I suggest > that a fourth stage be created between unstable and frozen. I would call > this "broken". A release candidate would roll