Re: branding debian releases
>
> it's important to note that the present branding scheme
> (unstable / testing / stable) is certainly ACCURATE from the
> point-of-view of the programmers and script-writers -- but for
> the public-at-large, those terms seem MYSTERIOUS and engender
> frequent explanations and lectures on this very list (enough to
> warrant a FAQ, which a debian-newbie is unlikely to locate or to
> read). often it seems like we have to dip into DAMAGE CONTROL
> MODE simply because a newbie didn't "grok" the release naming
> scheme.
>
> so maybe a "public-oriented name scheme" is worthy of
> consideration. that is, we could cautiously and considerately
> select appropriate names for the releases that make sense to the
> public at large, and:
>
> 1) not have to answer this question again!
> 2) improve dissemination of debian as folks are more
> likely to get the release they really want
> 3) watch the ranks grow and grow and grow...
>
> the idea would be to pick names that will make (appropriate)
> sense to people who are NOT intimately invovled in the project.
> by all means, keep the fun code names (slink, potato, woody,
> sarge, sid...) behind-the-scenes, of course. :)
>
> after brainstorming, of course, consideration of multilingual
> translations would be important; also, beware of terms easily
> warped into derogatory forms by "enemy camps" (think "marketing"
> and "spin"). but first, we need to gather all ideas, even ones
> that may seem silly.
>
> comments welcome.
I think the names are just fine.
The code names are great and the debian Names (Stable, Testing, Unstable) are
as they should be. If they are changed, I think we would have more questions
asking about the naming scheme.
Mike
Reply to: