Re: Better name for "unstable"?
On Tue, 19 Nov 1996, Brian C. White wrote:
> Shaya Potter wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Nov 1996, Brian C. White wrote:
> > > > Well, there is - XFree86-3.2 looks like a good excuse to me (especially
> > > > if it fixes critical bugs). Maybe we can still do it before Christmas...
> > >
> > > "stable" is supposed to be a solid, working system. If people want
> > > the latest & greates, then they can use "unstable". Hmmm... perhaps
> > > it might be an idea to rename "unstable" to "latest"? I've always
> > > found that "unstable" gave the wrong impression since it tends to
> > > be very stable.
> > Developer Snapshot might be a better name, otherwise some CD manufacturer
> > is gonna put it on their CD.
> The name is a little long, but you bring up a good point. Personally, I
> don't see a problem with it going on a CD, so long as the user can tell
> instantly that that tree has not been verified to work as a single entity.
That's actually why I thought the above would be a good name, so we can
do something like the free bsd project does, release "unstable" developer
snapshot releases, which we say we don't guarantee as being stable, but
is the latest and greatest.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com