>It seems to me that a solution might be to put our real directory >trees in a hidden subdirectory with a neutral name, to name those >trees neutrally, and then to have meaningfully named (and easily >changed) symlinks pointing to them: Something like: > > /debian/.hidden/debian-tree1/ # full 0.093 tree > /debian/.hidden/debian-tree2/ # full 1.1 tree > /debian-stable -> /debian/.hidden/debian-tree1 > /debian-unstable -> /debian/.hidden/debian-tree2 > /debian-0.93 -> /debian/.hidden/debian-tree1 > /debian-1.1.alpha -> /debian/.hidden/debian-tree2 > >Then, when 1.0 becomes the stable distribution, the symlinks >could change to: > > /debian-stable -> /debian/.hidden/debian-tree2 > /debian-devel -> /debian/.hidden/debian-tree2 > /debian-0.93 -> /debian/.hidden/debian-tree1 # might be deleted > /debian-1.1 -> /debian/.hidden/debian-tree2 > >Once a debian/.hidden/treeN tree is established, it should not be >renamed.
That's essentially identical to what I was proposing with just two practical differences: (1) it uses numbers rather than names and (2) it goes to more effort to hide things. As to (1), I think names are better than numbers for various reasons: it's easier to remember what they mean, and it gives us the option of choosing some cute theme. As to (2), I'm not convinced about hiding things; what we actually want is for people to look in the right place for a stable version without having to think about it. If people actually want to live on the bleeding edge, it shouldn't actually be any effort to do so - just hard to do by accident. -- Richard Kettlewell [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.elmail.co.uk/staff/richard/