> I think it should go broken -> unstable -> frozen -> stable.  It would
> seem to me that unstable -> broken represents a backwards move.

I disagree.  The unstable distribution is not necessarily broken.  The
frozen distribution _is_ broken most of the time, otherwise it would be
the stable one;  the only reason not to make the frozen distro stable
yet is usually a number of bugs.  I really think `broken' is much
clearer to potential users.  Therefore I would prefer the name `broken'
to `frozen'.  But I think there is another stage that might earn its own
name:  if the distro has only just become stable, usually some
installation issues have to be ironed out.  I propose to call this the
`tender' distribution.  It should then go `stable' after the official CD
has proven to work `in the wild'.  While the unstable distribution
becomes broken, the stable one has reached a stadium that we could
proudly call `robust'.

unstable -> broken -> tender -> stable -> robust

I feel this scheme might benefit from some refinement, but I suppose it
could do for the time being.

Eric

-- 
 E.L. Meijer ([EMAIL PROTECTED])          | tel. office +31 40 2472189
 Eindhoven Univ. of Technology             | tel. lab.   +31 40 2475032
 Lab. for Catalysis and Inorg. Chem. (TAK) | tel. fax    +31 40 2455054

Reply via email to