Andreas Tille writes ("Re: getting rid of "testing""):
> I never really understood why we need these codenames.
Simon McVittie wrote:
| Back when the release team decided on a per-release basis whether
| this was a "major" or "minor" release, we had the excuse that we had
| to use a codename for testing because we didn't know whether etch
| would be released as Debian 3.2 or Debian 4.0
I was around at the time and I have a vague recollection which roughly
matches Simon's. This reason no longer applies, of course.
I regularly make mistakes about the sort order of these codenames.
I agree with the rest of Andreas's message.
> Please leave testing as a name
As I said, I see no reason why [[old]old]stable and unstable need to
be abolished as names. They will still be useful in conversation,
even if they were never very useful in apt soruces.
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
