Would it help if, someone better qualified than I, discuss the ubuntu+1 concept?<br><br>I think (bear withme here, I'm not programmer)<br><br>That $ubuntu would be whatever the current version is.<br><br>Then ubuntu+1 would refer to whatever is in current development or HEAD.
<br><br>The only thing you'd use "code names" for is for stable releases. So in my thinking, let's say it's 4.7.x And 4.7 was called "bikeshed"<br><br>4.7.1 <br>4.7.2<br>4.7.3 etc... would all still be refered to as "bikeshed" but just different point releases within bikeshed. There would be no need or desire to name each individual point release.
<br><br>Ok, I hope I haven't confused anyone as much as I probably already am :)<br><br>Trae<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 9/19/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">sime</b> <<a href="mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org">email@example.com
</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">I have a Mac laptop. But frankly, I don't know whether it is Lynx,<br>
Panther, or Jaguar. And if I did, I don't know the running order of<br>those releases - they actually make no sense to me. My mac runs OSX and<br>X=10 and it's one more than OS9. The rest is marketing, and only matters<br>
in ad campaigns and plebian boasting.<br><br>This issue is about clarifying which head we are talking about for<br>future generations. So why not just "4.7 HEAD" or "5.0 HEAD"?<br>It would contract to something cutesie like
4.7H, 5.0H of course.<br><br>For the record, I am /more than happy/ to specify the upcoming release<br>when referring to HEAD, if asked nicely. ;-)<br><br>Simon<br><br><br>Khalid B wrote:<br><br>> On 9/19/06, Richard Archer <
<a href="mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org">email@example.com</a>> wrote:<br>><br>>> At 7:59 PM -0400 19/9/06, Trae McCombs wrote:<br>>><br>>> >Richard, please just go with a +1 or -1 for the idea.
<br>>><br>>> My -1 for names has already been posted.<br>><br>><br>> Fair enough.<br>><br>>> If we must use a name, HEAD is just fine.<br>><br>><br>> Richard, can I reiterate the arguments already made against this?
<br>><br>> Regarding HEAD/Trunk/cvs.<br>><br>> HEAD is transient. Today's HEAD and not tomorrow's HEAD. If an issue<br>> or a documentation page refers to HEAD, what release exactly does this<br>> correspond to? Look at an issue from a year or two ago that refers to
<br>> HEAD. Which release did the fix or the problem or the documented<br>> feature is in?<br>><br>> Hard to say, and to find out you have to do extensive research.<br>><br>> It would be easier to say 5.0
, since it is the next release. But that<br>> is not<br>> known until all the desired features go in, then a decision is made on<br>> whether this is a major or minor release.<br>><br>> Who knows, maybe FormAPI
7.0 and thingamajigg will make it in the<br>> next release and it is not 5.1 anymore, rather 6.0 ...<br>><br>> So, from the time 5.0 is branched till we decide on what the next number<br>> will be a code name (bikeshed, peaceNbananas, whatever) refers to
<br>> "the next release" after 5.0. Once it gets a number we can refer to<br>> either<br>> the number or the name since they are synonymous.<br>><br>> Why is this concept so hard to grasp?<br>>
<br>><br>><br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br> Trae McCombs || <a href="http://occy.net/">http://occy.net/</a><br> Founder - <a href="http://Themes.org">Themes.org</a> // <a href="http://Linux.com">