On 08/11/14 21:04, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 07:46:09PM +0100, Jerome BENOIT wrote: >> On 08/11/14 19:00, Adam Borowski wrote: >>> To prevent such problems in the future, what about choosing the names for >>> both zurg and zurg+1? This way, the codename for zurg+1 would be known >>> during the whole zurg development cycle. >> >> In this approach, for consistency, (zurg+1)+1=zurg+2 must also be given, and >> so forth: >> so from now to the end of the time, the all codename sequence must be given. >> Giving (<codename>+1) before the freeze of <codename> sounds more realistic. > > There's no no-negligible development nor plans for testing+2, so knowing > the name of just testing+1 is enough.
I am absolutely agree. My point was that the assertion `` choosing the names for both zurg and zurg+1 '' builds an infinite sequence of codenames. This is math. What I'm arguing for here, though, is > knowing testing+1 no later than the time of testing-1's release. > > Testing-1's freeze is on the other hand the earliest boundary when this > makes sense (if we include experimental as a part of zurg's cycle). I > proposed naming zurg+1 right now because we're right on this earliest > boundary, and the release team happens to be physically in one place. > > In the long run, moving the naming ceremony from freeze to release would > probably be best. > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/545e8e2b.4080...@rezozer.net