Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 10:44:28 -0800 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net> Cc: Stephen Roome <steve@visint.co.uk>, stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists Message-ID: <8785.858624268@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 17 Mar 1997 11:34:55 CST." <l03010d00af533005c68e@[208.2.87.4]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> The "problem" is that some of the entrenched people who get the dictate > what happens understand the distinctions but fail to the able to see the > situation from the point-of-view of the "general public". They prefer THEIR This can be a valid criticism at times, but also be very clear on the fact that the "public" ALSO has a dozen different interpretations of many of our actions to choose from, and trying to figure out just which of many possible interpretations will cause the least confusion is no easy task. You, of course, would have a very Richard Wackarbarth way of looking at it, and calling "-current" this or "-stable" that might make perfect sense to you but be considered total lunacy by someone else who sees things a completely different way - I'm sure if we wait around long enough, someone who's *not* in the "entrenched set" will tell you just how and why you've got it all wrong. Any reasonably impartial student of human behavior could then perhaps step forward and make the pertinent observation that what's really wrong here is that the terms are simply too vague and people are tripping over them. What's "current" mean, anyway? Or "stable" for that matter? Heh, we don't *even* need to get into the billions of possible interpretations of that word. :) 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: a) Would the confusion caused by an abrupt name change exceed the confusion caused by the current conventions? 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. Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8785.858624268>