[ Please don't Cc: me when replying to my message on a mailing list. ] "Larry 'Daffy' Daffner": > Perhaps we should rename unstable to current, along the lines of how > FreeBSD names their releases? No, absolutely not. We have already had people misinterpret debian-1.0. "current" has the same problem: does it mean "current release" or "current development snapshot"? This was a mistake for FreeBSD, or at least Jonathan Bresler, postmaster for the FreeBSD project, said so at the EurOpen.SE meeting (where we both gave talks on our respective systems). > I'll have to agree that unstable gives the wrong impression, since > unstable is, in general, very stable. But at other times it has critical parts that don't even install. We make no guarantees of how well unstable works. We do make guarantees about stable. It's important that people can easily tell the difference, without having to read a README.[1] The name "unstable" is supposed to scare off people who can't handle re-installing every day. It seems to work pretty well. If you're going to fix it, go for more violence, not less. Call it "murderer", "rapist", "genocide", or "congress". -- Please read <http://www.iki.fi/liw/mail-to-lasu.html> before mailing me. Please don't Cc: me when replying to my message on a mailing list. [1] Just the other day, I finally realized how to get people read README's: We need to re-do them as comics. Alternatively, we could call them WANNA-HAVE-SOME-FUN's.
Attachment:
pgppYQxyvvIqY.pgp
Description: PGP signature