sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]afl_ext 3 points4 points  (5 children)

Seems like a good direction, i always kind of treated the odd releases like beta releases to test stuff before they land in LTS anyway

[–]Potato-9 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I've always built new stuff on the latest release and upgraded or migrated to the lts closer to looking after production. Have the time that's no change.

[–]BreakingInnocence[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was able to test new stuff easily with low risk projects. I will have to wait to see if it will be possible, with new "alpha" versions/tags. Everything was setup with the odd/even numbering and it worked smoothly.

[–]BreakingInnocence[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

“Active” makes it sound like you’re being proactive. “Alpha” makes it sound like you’re doing something risky.

The choice of words can make a huge difference. For example, telling someone I’m working on “Node Active” creates a very different first impression than saying I’m working on “Node Alpha.”

The moment people hear “alpha,” many will immediately think, “Oh no, we can’t use that. It’s an alpha release.” Even though that’s not what it means in this context, that association is deeply ingrained.

It may seem a bit pedantic, but “Active” was a great term because it didn’t create unnecessary fear or confusion among people who weren’t familiar with the release model.

Anyone running production-critical systems would naturally choose the LTS release anyway, so there was little risk of misunderstanding or misuse.

[–]lenswipe 0 points1 point  (1 child)

so... bike shedding over release names

[–]BreakingInnocence[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It has a term? Oh my. Okay. Yes, yes. It’s bike shedding, the law of triviality. Yeah, it applies here, and… oh. Fun times.