On Friday, November 30, 2012 05:38:22 AM Laszlo Papp wrote: > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 8:03 AM, Knoll Lars <lars.kn...@digia.com> wrote: > > I know that branch naming is a possible topic for endless bike shedding. > > You can always find arguments against a certain name here. In the end it's > > not the most important thing whether it's called testing or stable. It's > > the meaning that we as a community associate with the branch name that's > > important. > > In my opinion, d3fault now raised a valid concern from usability point of > view this time.
Sure he did, but in the context of naming a concern is easy to respond to with a counter argument. For example it makes the other branches look like they're not subject to testing. Now you'll stay but that's not true and come up with another counter argument, and so on and so on. This is the business of naming, and sometimes there's just no perfect naming. While I'm personally also not 100% happy with the chosen names, I think that they'll do the job just fine. Please re-read what Lars wrote. I think he's right there. You can always find arguments against a name, and d3fault did find one and even came up with a proposal for an alternative. But the discussion is over, we're trying really hard to make a release, and changing the names now is going to cause completely unnecessary delays. Simon _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
