Re: Squeeze backport suite names (was Re: New Backports Suite created)
On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 12:35:08 -0400, James Vega wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Michael Gilbert
> <michael.s.gilbert@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 17:41:09 +0200, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> >> As every other suite it needs people that read the docs. And we won't change
> >> the name, so please stop to try.
> >
> > OK, I really don't want prolong this discussion since there is
> > obviously way too much inertia. I accept the current system as is for
> > lenny. However, would it be possible to consider/debate this for
> > squeeze-backports-* since those suites have yet to be set up?
>
> A naming scheme has already been chosen. Changing it between releases
> will just cause confusion. Considering that one will have to read
> instructions to find out about the suite in the first place and those
> instructions will describe the intent of the suite, why does the name
> matter so much that you would still like to see it changed?
Like I've said a few times now, it's a matter of clarity and reduced
scariness, which is very important for marketing purposes (obviously
Debian's achilles heel). As I've found time and again, any attempt to
improve marketing is bound for failure from the get go.
Obviously documentation is useful for a subset of users, but there
is also the large majority who don't read docs. You can only
attract/benefit the broader audience by choosing the name of things that
they will read very carefully.
I mean, if I know what squeeze is and I know what wheezy is, then the
name squeeze-backports-from-wheezy is 99% clear about what that is;
whereas squeeze-backports itself is maybe 90% clear (obviously made up,
subjective percentages). It is 0% clear how squeeze-backports-sloppy
and squeeze-backports differ; whereas, its 99% clear how
squeeze-backports-from-wheezy differs from
squeeze-backports-from-wheezy+1.
Best wishes,
Mike
Reply to: