Hi!
* Hideki Yamane <henrich@debian.or.jp> [2010-08-15 15:37:40 CEST]:
Hi list,
at http://www.debian.org/News/2010/20100730
> Tenth Annual Debian Developer Conference
No, it's "Eleventh" - since first debconf was debconf*0*...
http://debconf0.debconf.org/
As this was brought up on debian-publicity, got myself confused and is
now again mentioned I really wonder if the renumbering is really worth
it. It still feels like hiding the existence of one of the former
debconfs for a (IMHO) rather dubious reasoning of not wanting to confuse
people.
Personally I consider it very easy to state "the debconf number
corresponds to the yearname" - which is quickly and helpful and not
confusing at all. There is no reason to argument it "being a geek thing
and starting numbering at 0" which was handed around (and I agree with
that it might be confusing to non-geeks).
Can the decision be evaluated again now that feedback is coming in
about the confusion on a to some degree regular basis - or at least can
we get an argumentation line on why we are actively hiding the existence
of a debconf for the benefit of reducing numbering confusion?
Thanks,
Rhonda
--
"Lediglich 11 Prozent der Arbeitgeber sind der Meinung, dass jeder
Mensch auch ein Privatleben haben sollte."
-- http://www.karriere.at/artikel/884/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: [🔎] 20100815144109.GA27751@anguilla.debian.or.at">http://lists.debian.org/[🔎] 20100815144109.GA27751@anguilla.debian.or.at