Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 09:21:08 +1200 From: "Juha Saarinen" <juha@saarinen.org> To: "Jordan Hubbard" <jkh@osd.bsdi.com>, <dan@langille.org> Cc: <stable@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: Releases Message-ID: <KPECIILENDDLPCNIMLOFIENMCAAA.juha@saarinen.org> In-Reply-To: <20010409102526S.jkh@osd.bsdi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
:: That's a nice pat answer, but the problem is that for every value of :: "name" we propose, somebody comes forward and says "But that confuses :: me." We can't call it BETA, we can't call it STABLE, we can't call it :: RC, we can't call it PRERELEASE, because each and every one of those :: have had push-back from people who said it would conflict with :: previous definitions they hold dear. Given that, chances are :: excellent that any other halfway logical names we come up with will :: suffer from the same problem. Numbered releases instead, like the Linux kernel? Odd numbers == beta; even numbers == should work. ;-) :: If we were McDonalds (or Microsoft for that matter), we would also :: stop providing access to -stable and -current entirely because it had :: been statistically proven that the lower percentile out there was :: doing the equivalent of pouring coffee in their laps and we didn't :: want the liability. No... you would sell them Preview copies, so that they'd pay to have their laps scalded. Could fund the rest of the FreeBSD development programme, that. No, no, no need to thank me. I have these brilliant ideas all the time. -- Juha (Who also finds the naming convention baffling.) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?KPECIILENDDLPCNIMLOFIENMCAAA.juha>