On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 16:41:09 +0200 Gerfried Fuchs <[email protected]> wrote: > As this was brought up on debian-publicity, got myself confused and is > now again mentioned I really wonder if the renumbering is really worth > it. It still feels like hiding the existence of one of the former > debconfs for a (IMHO) rather dubious reasoning of not wanting to confuse > people. > > Personally I consider it very easy to state "the debconf number > corresponds to the yearname" - which is quickly and helpful and not > confusing at all. There is no reason to argument it "being a geek thing > and starting numbering at 0" which was handed around (and I agree with > that it might be confusing to non-geeks). > > Can the decision be evaluated again now that feedback is coming in > about the confusion on a to some degree regular basis - or at least can > we get an argumentation line on why we are actively hiding the existence > of a debconf for the benefit of reducing numbering confusion?
Agreed. Anyway, "Tenth Annual Debian Developer Conference" in news page is wrong, please remove "tenth" or change it to "Eleventh". -- Regards, Hideki Yamane henrich @ debian.or.jp/org http://wiki.debian.org/HidekiYamane -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
