On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 2:45 AM, Mark Taylor <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Malcolm et al.,
>
> more frequent releases sounds like good news, but I've got one comment.
> Perhaps it's just me, but even at <1 release per year I find
> the naming, while cute, confusing - is kaulia > kapuahi (and have I
> spelt them correctly)? I dunno. Numbers are a great invention.
> I should say I have the same trouble with leopards and snow leopards etc -
> if you live and breathe the software in question no doubt it's clear
> as day, but for more casual users it's not. I'm prepared to
> believe that for OSX this is part of a reasoned campaign to
> disorient and alienate Apple part-timers, but I don't know if
> the same is true for Starlink.
>
We could just switch to dated releases, especially if we go to rapid
release. People were installing namaka recently without realising that
that was a 2010 release. On the one hand "I installed the 2010.04
release of Starlink" would have convinced them that Starlink was dead
but saying "I installed the namaka release" didn't tell them that thy
were installing an obsolete version.
> Slightly related - is there some easy way to see what release you've
> got by looking at it (apart from the directory name, assuming it
> hasn't been renamed)? It would be nice to see a file at the top
> level in the upacked distribution whose name or content indicates
> the release identity.
>
In principal you type "starversion" and it tells you.
The file you re talking about was put in
$STARLINK_DIR/manifests/starlink.version by Norman...
--
Tim Jenness
|