Re: Requesting a naming convention for releases
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?
Maybe I wasn't in the best mood when writing. I also was annoyed
by people requesting to use a different naming scheme for the 100384th
> You are not making a case for *not* sequencing distributions in
> alphabetical order. I am not suggesting that we only have one name
Exactly. That's out of my scope. For the next release we (or the
ftp maintainers / release managers) are free to use the name with the
lowest (alphabetical ordering) first character. My mail only covered
the names in general, not in speciall.
> than four active release names, so what is your real objection to
> naming them in alphabetical order? Note that the letter a will be
I don't object. To be honest, I don't care even. This is up to
the team or ftp maintainers / release managers. It's not part of
Unable to locate coffee, operator halted. -- Stefan Farsch
Please always Cc to me when answering on the lists.