Name that Tree!
poelstra at redhat.com
Sun Feb 14 15:54:02 UTC 2010
Adam Williamson said the following on 02/14/2010 12:00 AM Pacific Time:
> On Sat, 2010-02-13 at 07:48 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> On Fri, 2010-02-12 at 21:18 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>> Why not just call it 13 now, and 14 next time, and so on? It doesn't
>>> really need to have its own name that's always the same...
>> Mostly because it becomes awkward to talk about things in "13" before 13
>> is released, and when we're trying to express how things work in the as
>> of yet unreleased tree that is fedora 13, it gets pretty wordy.
> I guess I just don't quite see that. Why's it awkward?
I don't see the awkwardness either.
I see it adding simplicity which is what we need vs. another name we
have to explain to people less involved in the development/release
process: what it is, if they should use it, etc.
Here is a draft diagram I have explaining what the trees and repos look
like. I don't think we need an additional label or name as the picture
illustrates or see what we gain.
More information about the devel