Christian Hofer wrote:
>>Jimmie Houchin <jhouchin at texoma.net> wrote:
>>[SNIP]
>>
>>>Unstable is the alpha, bleeding edge version. Always in development 
>>>incorporating the most recent software. It is named Sid due to the 
>>>character named Sid in the movie. I don't remember but Sid must have 
>>>been an unstable character. Unstable never changes names, it is always 
>>>Sid, because Sid is always unstable. :)
>>
>>You are right - I got it wrong. Sid is always unstable. It it testing
>>that is currently called Sarge.
>>Sorry for any confusion.
>>
>>regards, Göran
> 
> 
> I don't think you should feel sorry. You proved an important point: it is
> just hard to get it right! There are three names, so one should be able to
> either suppose that these names refer to the current and forthcoming releases, or
> that they are speaking names for the attributes "stable", "testing",
> "unstable". But neither is the case. The naming is obviously inconsistent. I am
> quite new to Smalltalk, but I preferred Java over C and I tend to prefer
> Smalltalk over Java, because you can express things more clearly. This spirit should
> - in my opinion - be extended to version names as well.
> 
> Christian

I agree, no reason to feel sorry.

However, it isn't necessarily inconsistent.
stable, testing, unstable are a consistent naming.
The projects given names aren't done for consistency but merely to give 
them a name to be called. You could just as well call Woody, Debian 3.0 
and be fine. However, the community likes the cute names. :)

They could have just as easily left unstable unnamed since it is a 
project never released. However, I guess the character Sid in Toy Story 
is unstable and appropriate for the distributions name.

I really have to go and watch the movie again some time.

I personally always refer to it as Sid because I don't like to call it 
unstable, because to me, for me it hasn't been. Testing was more 
unstable for me.

Jimmie Houchin