From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 11 12:11:30 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42FA616A473 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:11:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from news@nermal.rz1.convenimus.net) Received: from mx2.netclusive.de (mx2.netclusive.de [89.110.132.132]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05F7213C4C3 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:11:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from news@nermal.rz1.convenimus.net) Received: from nermal.rz1.convenimus.net (Fdd69.f.ppp-pool.de [195.4.221.105]) (Authenticated sender: ncf1534p2) by mx2.netclusive.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id A64A52602EA for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:11:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: by nermal.rz1.convenimus.net (Postfix, from userid 8) id A827E15217; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:03:42 +0200 (CEST) To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Path: not-for-mail From: Christian Baer Newsgroups: gmane.os.freebsd.current Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:03:42 +0200 (CEST) Organization: Convenimus Projekt Lines: 19 Message-ID: References: <86przndoe8.fsf@ds4.des.no> NNTP-Posting-Host: sunny.rz1.convenimus.net X-Trace: nermal.rz1.convenimus.net 1192104222 93945 192.168.100.5 (11 Oct 2007 12:03:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@convenimus.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:03:42 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.1 (FreeBSD/6.2-RELEASE-p8 (sparc64)) Subject: Re: suggest renaming and extending the -CURRENT and -STABLE lines X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:11:30 -0000 On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:29:12 +0200 Ivan Voras wrote: > This will probably degenerate into a bikeshed so I'll add just one > suggestion: rename "-STABLE" to "-ABISTABLE" or "-STABLEABI" and carry > on as usual. :) That however is a little hard for an inexperienced user to read or understand. It may be the technically correct term but we all know that there are lots of those around - not only in CS - that can't possibly mean anything useful to an outsider. Either we give all the branches names that are technically correct but at the same time let the user grasp what he is doing, or we give completely meaningless names (in a technical sense) like "Peter", "Paul" and "Mary" and write characterizations for each of these. Using names like this will force the user to read the documentation before choosing a branch. Regards Chris