Re: New Backports Suite created
On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 17:29:10 +0200, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> Michael Gilbert schrieb am Tuesday, den 05. October 2010:
>
> > On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 08:49:03 +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > * Michael Gilbert <michael.s.gilbert@gmail.com> [2010-10-04 22:56:49 CEST]:
> > > > On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 22:32:28 +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> > > > > Actually, no, because that would give the impression that actually
> > > > > backports from unstable are wanted in it, which is only the exception,
> > > > > especially for now during the freeze of squeeze. After squeeze is
> > > > > released the same rules like for squeeze-backports will apply, the
> > > > > package has to be in testing (which will be wheezy by then).
> > > >
> > > > If they're the same thing at that point, then why have both?
> > >
> > > Because one is backports to lenny, and one is backports to squeeze?
> > > I really hope you can understand the difference?
> > >
> > > > That just makes it hard for the user to decide which they need/want.
> > >
> > > Documentation is in the works, please be patient.
> > >
> > > > It seems like it would be cleaner to always have an
> > > > *-unstable-backports, but most of the time it would be empty (except
> > > > for during the freeze).
> > >
> > > I usually dislike to repeat myself, but unstable in the name won't
> > > happen because it doesn't carry what it is for or meant to be. Your
> > > concern with respect to the name got heard, but please accept that other
> > > people have a different opinion. Repeated messages stating the same
> > > won't change that.
> >
> > Understood, and I hope you saw that I corrected my own misunderstanding
> > in the follow-on message. Like I said, it's pretty clear to me now that
> > lenny-backports is actually lenny-backports-from-squeeze and
> > lenny-backports-sloppy is lenny-backports-from-wheezy. Wouldn't those
> > be better names since they're much more self-descriptive?
> Yeah, maybe we should call it
> lenny-backports-from-squeeze-and-maybe-from-lenny-security-or-maybe-also-from-point-releases.
It's obviously a tradeoff between succinctness and clarity. "sloppy"
is so succinct that its completely unclear, which I think is bad. No
name will be completely clear, but it can be mostly self-descriptive if
chosen well.
Anyway, I really like the new suite. I think it's a great addition,
but I also think it deserves a less nebulous, more inviting name.
Best wishes,
Mike
Reply to: