Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 19:10:39 +0000 (GMT) From: Stephen Roome <steve@visint.co.uk> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Cc: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net>, stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.970318181923.27834B-100000@bagpuss.visint.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <8785.858624268@time.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > So we picked poor names for our branches. We blew it. It's not that > hard to do in an evolutionary environment like this one, but now > rather than continue to natter on for another dozen rounds about how > terrible the current naming scheme is, I really would prefer to see > the "general public" answer these two simple questions: I don't think you blew it, it's just unfortunate that these terms could be a cause of confusion, you yourself said this was an evolutionary environment. Wouldn't it be wrong if the terms we use to describe that environment don't evolve with it ? Particularly seeing as the environment to be described has changed so much. (how many development trees are there !?) > > a) Would the confusion caused by an abrupt name change > exceed the confusion caused by the current conventions? At the point of a change there will always be more confusion, I was confused (or at least, I had some learning to do) when I first changed my computer over from running Windows to FreeBSD, but everything is now much less a source of confusion. So the answer to a is YES, it will cause confusion. > > b) Assuming that the answer to (a) is no and now you've got > carte blanche to change things, what names would you choose > to describe the 3 tracks of development (mostly quiescent, > current release track, bleeding edge development) which you > feel would most adequately convey their purpose to the > layperson? Explain your rationale for each choice. I don't agree with the logic here, it seems to miss that although an abrupt change will cause more confusion now, it will cause less confusion to future people who have to deal with these terms than if we stick with them. I don't see how we can happily wander into a permanent future of incompatible terminology simply so that it is easier now. As long there is a sensible migration plan then any change for the better should be made assuming FreeBSD will go on for ever (would you rather assume otherwise ?). It seems that there is unanimous (although, as an 'armchair' student of human behaviour, I can see that someone might love these terms) agreement that the terms that are currently in use to describe the various releases of FreeBSD are either no longer appropriate or a description, which to many seems to be inaccurate (although, again, they could be seen to be a good description, but one would need to know more about each release to see why, as most people reading this probably do.) (Don't read this paragraph if you hate M$ Windoze) The easiest way to rename the branches to explain to Joe Public would be to call the different releases 3.1, 95, and NT. Although someone might have to explain that this is only in the way the releases compare to each other, not to the Microsoft versions! (Oh, someone just pointed out as well, FreeBSD 3.1 shouldn't get released, it should skip straight to 3.2 to avoid idiots relating it to Windows 3.1, which everyone knows was awful!) On the subject of an actual name, I rather liked my original idea of -past, -present and -future, which don't elaborate any more than is necessary. Although -future might be best called -development to avoid too many morons thinking it's stable already and perfect for their Mega-Budget production environment. The only distinction that is important is that what we now call -current should be very noticeable under development, and that the other two versions are previous and present releases. One option is not in the naming at all, but how they are given to people, it doesn't seem necessary to put the -current tree next to -stable and -release in a directory on an FTP site.. So, in short, my suggestion would be: 2.1.7-previous-release OR 2.1.7-previous 2.2-current-release OR 2.2-current 3.0-development-only OR 3.0-development (This should be kept separate from 2.2 and 2.1.7 on the FTP sites in order to minimize confusion.. Anyone who can't find out how to get hold of 3.0-development anyway certainly shouldn't be using it!) If it's felt to be necessary to cut the length of the descriptions down then so be it, but why not go for a longer description, especially if it actually expains it to some extent, as explanation this seems vital. Steve Roome. -- (Lame Signature File - please replace name and give to some manager) Stephen B. Roome VIP BSc(Hons) BSC Blah Blah. Arrogant TM. Very Important Sounding Job Title
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.970318181923.27834B-100000>