Mad Penguin review

[Michael Shigorin]

On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 02:11:12PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > PS: actually I never understood those silly "codenames" which
> > are usually neither code nor names, starting with Chicago. :)
> > (no need to tell they make dev chat more terse)
> Codenames are used to refer to software while in development,
> when the final version number (especially when using dates) is
> not known.

Well, version numbers using dates are quite special case to me
too. :)

In fact, Ubuntu scheme seems the first that I personally find
quite logical and apt; still it also sets quite specific margins
on release times, will spectate with quite some interest how it
turns out, at least Fedora cycle discussion was not less
interesting than Mozilla's one.

> It'd look very silly referring to something as "Windows 2004"
> during development and then missing it by miles, so they use
> "Longhorn" and don't assign other names until later in the
> cycle.

Looks very silly even then, at least for some of us. :)

> This is still true in our world, just the exposure to the
> codenames tends to be greater because more people follow the
> development cycles rather than the stable cycles.

Thanks, Scott.  I wasn't missing the explanation, I just happen 
to find the whole idea... funny.  That is, e.g. archives during
potato development cycle looked quite weird for non-initiated.

Nevermind, if it works for people and amuses for the good -- 
why not? :)

PS: I still *do* read this relatively seldom read mbox, thanks.

-- 
 ---- WBR, Michael Shigorin <mike at altlinux.ru>
  ------ Linux.Kiev http://www.linux.kiev.ua/
 ----       visit our conference (Oct 1):
--          http://conference.osdn.org.ua