On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 01:10:54PM +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> Except that it's lying to our users to name it "rolling" because packages
> from rolling won't be rc-bug free. For this reason, I think that "testing"
> is a very well choosen name, more honest about its state. If people think
> that "testing" (as a suite) is broken, then we should try to change that
> idea, instead of just changing its name. (IMO)
Agreed. But let's do not underestimate the importance of a thing as
simple as a name. It's difficult to explain changes to users (mostly
because we cannot assume they will all Read The Fine Manual, and that's
just the way it is). So, if we manage to find a way to change the
current target users and expectation of an existing suite, changing its
name *as well* might be warranted ... and useful!
FWIW in the Q/A session of my talk at LCA earlier on this year [1], we
discussed quite a bit about "rolling distributions", as it were clearly
a very interesting topic for the audience there (and not only there, IME
of recent talks ...). A common critique coming from users there has been
that Debian has "undersold" testing which has, de facto, invented what
many people today call "rolling distributions".
Choosing better names might be *part* of a strategy to avoid
underselling the good things we do in Debian in the future.
Cheers.
[1] http://lca2011.linux.org.au/programme/schedule/view_talk/153
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Quando anche i santi ti voltano le spalle, | . |. I've fans everywhere
ti resta John Fante -- V. Capossela .......| ..: |.......... -- C. Adams
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature