On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 17:57 +0100, Gregorio Guidi wrote:
> On Monday 07 November 2005 15:27, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > ...
> > > Hmm, I'd like it, if we also (re)moved stage1 and stage2 from visible
> > > directory, and renamed stage3 to something more appropriate by the
> > > 2006.0. I mean, it will probably be confusing for a new user if the
> > > guide just says "Oh, we have this things that say 1 and 2 in the
> > > directory, but please ignore them and start from 3, because 1 and 2 are
> > > only for devs, k?" And it won't help, that old users will most likely
> > > continue to advice for stage 1 in so many support channels.
> > I'm not sure if the removal of stages 1 and 2 will happen in time for
> > 2006.0, simply because it is a *very* heated issue and one that will
> > take some serious politics to get enacted.
> > I guarantee that I won't be a popular guy. *grin*
> That's where a bit of PR and marketing techniques could help... if you say
> "Release Engeneering decided to not release stage1 and stage2 for 2006.0."
> every user out there will try to kill you.
> Instead, if you announce "For 2006.0, Release Engeneering decided to unify the
> functionalities of the three installation stages you were used to in single
> Stage file that provides the same capabilities and flexibility with less
> complication." (and change the handbook along this direction) how can someone
> complain about that?
Doing a bootstrap from a stage3 tarball is worthless. You've made it
sound like users should bootstrap from a stage3 tarball.
While I completely agree that it is all in how you present it, there are
certain things that we absolutely wish to get away from, and one of them
is having the user *ever* run bootstrap.sh themselves.
> It's just a matter of using the right words ;)
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer