Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 13:28:52 -0800 From: Dave Hayes <dave@kachina.jetcafe.org> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Cc: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net>, Stephen Roome <steve@visint.co.uk>, stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists Message-ID: <199703172129.NAA29315@kachina.jetcafe.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Any reasonably impartial student of human behavior could then perhaps > step forward and make the pertinent observation that what's really > wrong here is that the terms are simply too vague and people are > tripping over them. You're not abstracting far enough. The real "wrong" here is best observed (IMO) from the standpoint of someone trying to get "support" from the email archives or by mailing to a list. > terrible the current naming scheme is, I really would prefer to see > the "general public" answer these two simple questions: > a) Would the confusion caused by an abrupt name change > exceed the confusion caused by the current conventions? Not for me. > b) Assuming that the answer to (a) is no and now you've got > carte blanche to change things, what names would you choose > to describe the 3 tracks of development (mostly quiescent, > current release track, bleeding edge development) which you > feel would most adequately convey their purpose to the > layperson? "Stable", "current", and "future". > Explain your rationale for each choice. When all three names are viewed as a set, they appear to imply a common abstraction of your development tracks. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet A king who feared wasps once decreed that they would be abolished. As it happened, they did him no harm. But he was eventually stung to death by scorpions.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199703172129.NAA29315>