[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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
my mail.



Unable to locate coffee, operator halted.  -- Stefan Farsch

Please always Cc to me when answering on the lists.

Reply to: