Re: Name suggestion
>> ... I suggest
>> that a fourth stage be created between unstable and frozen. I would call
>> this "broken".
[ snip ]
>Witness a post of mine on Monday: "Upgraded to unstable, now unstable" ;-)
Well, it has always caused a little confusion (for me and the others that I
have introduced to Debian) that "unstable" doesn't mean that the software,
itself, is volatile, but that the version numbers of the packages are
(relative to the other dists) not as constant. Personally, I think a better
choice of nomenclature could have been chosen. "stable" and "unstable" are
just too ambiguous as to what they could mean.
In fact, it has just occurred to me that we could have named them "alpha",
"beta", and "release" instead of "unstable", "frozen", and "stable".
It would be nice if there were some distinction between the things that have
*just* been uploaded and not really had a couple of days of trial on a
variety of configurations... versus the ones that have passed the "initial
inspection". So, you could have one called "latest", "untested",
"still-twitching", or whatever. I guess packages would be moved from
"incoming" into "latest". If they weren't replaced by a succeeding version
within, say, 4 days, then it would be moved to "alpha". With something like
this, people would be able to update their systems from "alpha", "beta", and
"release", and they'd still be fairly immune from that libstdc++ problem
(provided that the maintainer caught it and fixed it within the holding
period of 4 days or whatever it would be).
- Joe
Reply to: