Re: Version numbering for release DECISION!

[Chris Pressey <cpressey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 19:21:43 +0200
Raphael Marmier <raphael@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 06:32:33PM +0200, Raphael Marmier wrote:
> > 
> >>     ^
> >>     |
> >>
> >>  UNTESTED 1.5.x
> > 
> > 
> > s/UNTESTED/CURRENT/. Just because it is the _current_ code doesn't
> > make it "untested". I agree with the other names though.
> I didn't think this one too carefully, you are right. Although,
> thinking  from the administrator/manager point of view, it is
> "untested" with  regard to production.
>
> > Maybe even PRODUCTION --> BUGFIXES.
> I beg to insist on PRODUCTION. BUGFIXES is informative for engineer,
> but  has negative connotation. PRODUCTION is positive: it positively
> tells  this is the release to be used in production, and that
> everything that  is done on it is done with production only in mind.

I agree 100% that the names should indicate the _purpose_ of the thing
rather than its state or circumstances, simply because most people will
be more interested in its purpose than in other factors.

So PRODUCTION is a better name than STABLE, DEVELOPMENT is a better name
than UNTESTED or CURRENT, and PREVIEW is a better name than WORKING.

-Chris