Re: Jessie Freeze -> What is the next release name? (jessie+1)
On 08/11/14 21:04, Adam Borowski wrote:
> 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.
I am absolutely agree. My point was that the assertion
`` choosing the names for both zurg and zurg+1 ''
builds an infinite sequence of codenames. This is math.
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.
>
Reply to: