Re: Version numbering for release DECISION!

[Iantcho Vassilev <ianchov@xxxxxxxxx>]

Agree
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:07:25 -0800, Chris Pressey
<cpressey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 19:21:43 +0200
> Raphael Marmier <raphael@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 06:32:33PM +0200, Raphael Marmier wrote:
> > >
> > >>     ^
> > >>     |
> > >>
> > >>  UNTESTED 1.5.x
> > >
> > >
> > > s/UNTESTED/CURRENT/. Just because it is the _current_ code doesn't
> > > make it "untested". I agree with the other names though.
> > I didn't think this one too carefully, you are right. Although,
> > thinking  from the administrator/manager point of view, it is
> > "untested" with  regard to production.
> >
> > > Maybe even PRODUCTION --> BUGFIXES.
> > I beg to insist on PRODUCTION. BUGFIXES is informative for engineer,
> > but  has negative connotation. PRODUCTION is positive: it positively
> > tells  this is the release to be used in production, and that
> > everything that  is done on it is done with production only in mind.
> 
> I agree 100% that the names should indicate the _purpose_ of the thing
> rather than its state or circumstances, simply because most people will
> be more interested in its purpose than in other factors.
> 
> So PRODUCTION is a better name than STABLE, DEVELOPMENT is a better name
> than UNTESTED or CURRENT, and PREVIEW is a better name than WORKING.
> 
> -Chris
> 


-- 
Iantcho Vassilev   ianchov@xxxxxxxxx     ianchov@xxxxxxx
PGP key:               http://ianchov.data.bg/ianchov.asc
Fingerprint:           6F2E E131 B5AB 044C D409 A201 1672 FD7B F558 97DA
note:                     PGP key changed/that`s the real one