Re: Jessie Freeze -> What is the next release name? (jessie+1)
On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 07:46:09PM +0100, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
> On 08/11/14 19:00, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > To prevent such problems in the future, what about choosing the names for
> > both zurg and zurg+1? This way, the codename for zurg+1 would be known
> > during the whole zurg development cycle.
> In this approach, for consistency, (zurg+1)+1=zurg+2 must also be given, and so forth:
> so from now to the end of the time, the all codename sequence must be given.
> Giving (<codename>+1) before the freeze of <codename> sounds more realistic.
There's no no-negligible development nor plans for testing+2, so knowing
the name of just testing+1 is enough. What I'm arguing for here, though, is
knowing testing+1 no later than the time of testing-1's release.
Testing-1's freeze is on the other hand the earliest boundary when this
makes sense (if we include experimental as a part of zurg's cycle). I
proposed naming zurg+1 right now because we're right on this earliest
boundary, and the release team happens to be physically in one place.
In the long run, moving the naming ceremony from freeze to release would
probably be best.
// If you believe in so-called "intellectual property", please immediately
// cease using counterfeit alphabets. Instead, contact the nearest temple
// of Amon, whose priests will provide you with scribal services for all
// your writing needs, for Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory prices.