On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 8:38 AM, Kamil Paral <kparal(a)redhat.com>
> Yay for overloaded terms. What we can do is to use "current stable
> release", "previous stable release" and "Branched release".
Do you think
> that makes sense or do you see a better way?
Tricky. For ~2 months each year there are three supported current
stable releases at the same time.
next-release (or branched)
"Branched" is good because it ties the release to the branching
process, which is an existing familiar term. I don't like combining
"branched" with the word release though, because this isn't a release
yet. Whereas 'next-release' suggests it's not yet a release but will
be. Another plus for next-release is that before branch, it's also
rawhide, whereas branched(-release) doesn't exist until branch
Thanks for the ideas, it helped me to think about this. I didn't use it in my current
edit, but I quite like "next release".
previous and expiring could just be referred to as previous.
stable vs release
Does using both help? Or is this just wordy? I'm not thinking how the
combination helps. Is there an unstable release? Are there previous
unstable releases? Ostensibly Fedora releases stable software, so I
think stable release is redundant. I'd pick one: i.e. current-stable
In this case I think it's better to use "current stable release", because we
also have development releases, and "current release" does not make it clear
which one it is.
> This way it's possible refer to supported releases as just "release"
> or as *-release rather than "one or more previous stable" or "current
> or previous". Just call them Fedora *-release. It's less wordy.
> Yeah there is a bit of secret decoder ring with this too, but off hand
> I think it's easier to explain/document, remember, and write out than
> long handing everything. In any case, the terms chosen should be
> useful to those who use them the most.
> Chris Murphy