Re: [Crm114-general] version naming

[Raul M. <mo...@ma...>]

On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 09:04:25PM +0100, Radoslaw Szkodzinski wrote:
> However, I'm for making the names less prominent and removal of
> well-tested/bleeding-edge/cutting-edge division. In my opinion,
> "Bleeding-edge" is less buggy than "Well-tested".

Eh?

Do you mean "less prominent" or "less colorful"?

Ok, starting from the top:

[1] there are two classes of releases, experimental (announced only to
list) and mainstream (announced on web site).  There could be value in
a third class of release, but then again maybe not.  Perhaps someone
could support well tested with important fixes backported versions,
but I don't think anyone has demonstrated an implementation of this
which is better than having the important fixes forwardported.

[2] There is a clear an unambiguous distinction between each release --
that's the release date which is a part of the version.

[3] Each release also gets a colorful (and, thus, easy to remember)
name which facilitates refering to that version in informal conversation.

Now, obviously, there's ore to be said about each release -- there's
the changelogs, and there's patches which could be used to describe the
differences between versions.  But that's getting way beyond what can
be squeezed into a name.

Within this context, can you say what the advantages are of whatever it
is you're proposing?

Thanks,

-- 
Raul