re:Just browsing the new FTP structure...

["brian (b.c.) white" <bcwhite@bnr.ca>]

I noticed that the directory under which all the 1.1 stuff is located
seems to be /debian/unstable.

Personally, I think "unstable" is a bad name.  It gives the wrong impression.
I have found v1.1 to be quite stable, just unfinished.  Perhaps "unreleased"
would be better?  "development" is also a bit misleading since it can be
interpreted as "get this release if you want to do development", much like
the "devel" section within each distribution.

Also, since "unstable" is a fixed directory, what will this do to
mirror sites when it gets renamed?  Not every mirror-maintainer reads
these mailing lists, and sometimes even these lists don't provide enough
warning!

I'm curious as to why the symlinks were not enough?  Using the "codename"
method (sorry I can't remember who proposed it), you would have a directory
structure like:

        debian/
                debian-0.93 -> versions/prerelease
                debian-1.1  -> versions/primus
                stable      -> debian-1.1
                unreleased  -> versions/secondus
                versions/
                        prerelease/             (Note that I just made
                        primus/                  these up!  I'm sure
                        secondus/                there are better names.)

The above is structured as though v1.1 had been released and work is
commencing on v1.2.

                                        Brian
                                 ( bcwhite@bnr.ca )

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In theory, theory and practice are the same.  In practice, they're not.