--yklP1rR72f9kjNtc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 09:32:54AM +0000, Sarunas Vancevicius wrote:
> On 10:05, Sat 26 Mar 05, Bill Hacker wrote:
> > STABLE releases =3D DFSMMMYY
> > CURRENT releases =3D DFCMMMDDYY
> > EXPERIMENTAL or testing versions =3D DFXMMMDDYY.nn
>=20
> > Bill
>=20
> I think most people not familiar with this naming convention will
> get confused.
>=20
> E.G: a person who just read about DragonFly and wants to try it out.
> Goes to one of the mirrors, and is not sure which iso to download,
> and downloads the wrong one, say EXPERIMENTAL. =20
>=20
> Boots it and horrible things start to happen (say, gets a panic
> while booting). Now, this person, might stay away from DragonFly,
> and spread his unpleasant experience along the community he came
> from.
>=20
> So IMO its better to keep the naming as simple as possible.
>=20
> Just my 2 cents.
>=20
> Sarunas
I agree. Spelling it out and using a couple more bytes for a
longer filename (or simply putting these in a subdirectory of
the same name) has my vote.
i.e.
EXPERIMENTAL/DFXYYYYMMDD
CURRENT/DFCYYYYMMDD
STABLE/DFSYYYYMMDD
Or even just:
EXPERIMENTAL/Experimental-YYYYMMDD
Which might be easier to read.
--Devon
--yklP1rR72f9kjNtc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFCRTGXSkf3jVXOdl0RAhywAJsF2PgqHJcLQehiewWSlMgxv3VzcgCghG/N
u4NL2HYCG52CcSq//ZJ0a1I=
=2rmA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--yklP1rR72f9kjNtc--