Re: Requesting a naming convention for releases
On Fri, Dec 04, 1998 at 11:11:16AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Oscar Levi wrote:
> > > No, we're not running out of names. We're hit by that in > 5years
> > > since there are about 15-20 names left.
> >
> > You miss the point. At five releases a year, it will take five years
> > to reuse a letter. By this time, we will have forgotton the previous
> > one and there will be no confusion. I suggested lexical order so that
> > ordering for the few active releases is obvious.
>
> 1st We don't have five releases per year but only four if we're lucky,
> more likely three or two.
>
> 2nd We're not going to forget the old releases and names.
> Old names are listed on some web pages, new names are stored
> elsewhere.
I'm reading acrimony in your message. Is this intentional?
You are not making a case for *not* sequencing distributions in
alphabetical order. I am not suggesting that we only have one name
that starts with each letter. That's ridiculous. I am not suggesting
that we release more often. It is improbably that we will have more
than four active release names, so what is your real objection to
naming them in alphabetical order? Note that the letter a will be
reused after the letter z.
Reply to: