Re: [volatile] status update
On Fri, Dec 24, 2004 at 05:01:56PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 23, 2004 at 12:34:31PM -0500, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 23, 2004 at 05:05:28PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > there has been some silent work on the volatile archive. Now, the
> > > archive is ready to have some packages uploaded.
> >
> > Maybe I'm a little late, but I have some concerns with the name.
> >
> > >From WordNet (r) 2.0 (August 2003) [wn]:
> >
> > volatile
> [..]
> > 4: tending to vary often or widely; "volatile stocks";
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > "volatile emotions"
> >
> > Does anyone really want software on their system that meets any of those
> > definitions? It's even scarier sounding than "unstable" or
> > "experimental"...
>
> I thought the marked definition fit quite well.
To me, it sounds like there would either be great turnover in the
packages (packages constantly being added or removed) or variation in
quality (esp. packages that could make your system "explode"). Neither
is true--these are just a small set of packages that need to be updated
frequently.
A term like "transient", on the other hand, connotes the packages are
only useful for a short amount of time, which is exactly the case.
If you all like "volatile", then don't mind me. Just making a
suggestion... *shrug*
--
For every sprinkle I find, I shall kill you!
Reply to: