Re: getting rid of "testing"

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Andreas Tille writes ("Re: getting rid of "testing""):
>  I never really understood why we need these codenames.

Simon McVittie wrote:

| Back when the release team decided on a per-release basis whether
| this was a "major" or "minor" release, we had the excuse that we had
| to use a codename for testing because we didn't know whether etch
| would be released as Debian 3.2 or Debian 4.0

I was around at the time and I have a vague recollection which roughly
matches Simon's.  This reason no longer applies, of course.

I regularly make mistakes about the sort order of these codenames.

I agree with the rest of Andreas's message.

>  Please leave testing as a name

As I said, I see no reason why [[old]old]stable and unstable need to
be abolished as names.  They will still be useful in conversation,
even if they were never very useful in apt soruces.

Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.