Tanglu B-Release name voting will happen soon

Ink Apnea inkapnea at gmail.com
Mon Jan 20 18:14:14 EST 2014


On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 8:49 PM,  <ca2013 at arcor.de> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Alexander Riepl <ari at housingsklave.at> wrote:
>> The classical
>> naming scheme (a release number, either 5,6,7,8 such as Debian or 10.04,
>> 10.10, 11.04, 11.10 as Ubuntu combined with a nickname) hasworked for
>> many years now.
>
> Precisely that mixing of version numbers and nicknames are very confusing.
> When a mere user looks for information he finds references that make absolutely
> no sense for normal people. For example, a user installed 12.04 and gets
> some thing like:
> "In precise this is bad but we might be getting that into saucy."
>
> I think it is important to facilitate clear communications.
> Thus I'd propose to keep the naming truly simple,
> stupid and precise like "tanglu 2014A".
>
> By all means, avoid requiring any freak like knowledge from users and adding ambiguity.

While I like the 2014A, 2014B scheme more than the actual 1.2, think
about the (rare) event when you must release an updated ISO image with
some critical post release fixes (it happened with Linux Mint 14.1) or
when you release un updated ISO because it's an LTS.
How do you call them? 2014B.1 and 2014B.2 ? Sadly reminds me of a DVD
burner firmware :-)

So I must agree with Alexander Riepl, a classical naming like Debian
(and Mint) has worked, it's short and simple to sort out. If
something's unclear with the release dates or nicknames - a quick look
at a comparison table on wiki.tanglu.org or Wikipedia will take away
all doubts.
Nicknames add some personality and are useful in some cases, but
prefer to leave them short, in alphabetical order and one word long
(not two like in Ubuntu).
The repo is now called "aequorea" but the wallpaper displays "aequorea
victoria". Maybe it's a good idea to reduce the amount of information
and remove all the "victoria" references from everywhere except the
release anouncement.
...This roughly reminds me about the 2010 discussion and voting for
the new openSUSE numbering scheme, some point are the same. Their case
was different because openSUSE releases every 8 months and as added
complexity they had to pay attention to the previous numbering scheme.
Regards,
Ink Apnea


More information about the Tanglu-devel mailing list