[Asterisk-Dev] asterisk s/stable/static/ ?

[Paul]

Rich Adamson wrote:

>>i just thought according to the legendary discussion about 'stable'  
>>being stable or not, perhaps the old 'stable' should be renamed to  
>>'static' or so not to confuse lost souls? this could eventually open  
>>up for a new 'stable' track in which the whole point was stability.....
>>
>>just my thoughts......
>>    
>>
>
>In my opinion, and everyone has one, the cvs-head stuff is far more
>current and stable then anything else (give it a couple of days past
>any mass updates/changes). The entire notion of Stable vs v1.x vs head has
>absolutely no relavance to anything unless one closely monitors the
>cvs list, developers list, etc.
>
>The development cycle exists only in the minds of the developers and
>their interpretation of Stable, which is seldom (if ever) actually
>used/tested by those that use those terms with few exceptions.
>
>Translated...
>  If asterisk-cvs list is fairly inactive,
>    then cvs-head is more stable then Stable,
>  else
>    don't use cvs-head
>  endif
>
>  
>
Why not just let those lost souls find their way out of the confusion? 
They are going to install asterisk on a linux system. They are entering 
a world where lots of packages are called stable or unstable regardless 
of which has the most stability. They can adapt.

Besides, the "stable" branch is the one that they should install on 
production servers unless they know what they are doing. If they know 
what they are doing, they are not confused lost souls and will 
understand the naming system.

Changing it will not reduce the whine and gripe level much at all.