zsh and zsh-devel

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Sep 3, 2007, at 08:47, Vincent Lefevre wrote:

> On 2007-09-02 22:40:01 +0200, Anders F Björklund wrote:
>
>> N_Ox wrote:
>>
>>> zsh is now quite old and its maintainship has been dropped.
>>> I'm the current maintainer of zsh-devel and I think it does not  
>>> deserve
>>> its -devel nature.
>>> Should we delete zsh and rename zsh-devel?
>>
>> Upstream still lists 4.2.6 (2005-12-05) as the "stable" series and  
>> 4.3.4
>> (2007-04-19) as the "development" series, so it seems a good idea  
>> to keep
>> the current naming ?
>
> BTW, I don't really like the names "stable" and "development" since
> they don't always mean what they really mean. In particular, one may
> think that the development version is more buggy than the stable
> version. In the case of zsh, this is currently the opposite.
>
> Also "development" is misleading when at some point, a developement
> version becomes a stable version. For instance, what if the successor
> of 4.3.4 becomes the stable version 4.4.0, so that 4.3.4 is out-of- 
> date
> and 4.5.0 isn't out yet? The user of zsh-devel should expect an  
> upgrade
> to 4.4.0 instead of staying with the out-of-date 4.3.4.

What portname suffix would you propose instead of "-devel"? "-devel"  
seems ok to me -- it indicates that this will install the version  
currently being developed by the developers, as opposed to the  
version that is stable and has already been developed.

We could use "-beta" but that would be inaccurate for many software  
projects where that's not the term they use to describe their  
development software.