Repository navigation
Re-brand "Stable" channel to "Current" #669
Description
Activity
I'm +1 on this. Who needs to sign off on a change this big? @nodejs/tsc? @nodejs/ctc?
Reacted by Steve MaoDid we decide on the name "Current?"
fwiw I'm +1 on a change... I'm up for whatever and will avoid getting into the naming bike shed.
"Stable" in particular has been causing some misconceptions.
I like "Current"
@mscdex we have several other threads, mostly around the LTS branding, where we talked about this. A lot of those threads are side tracked by proposing re-branding LTS (which we decided not to do and survey results show that people actually do understand it pretty well) but having "Stable" and "LTS" is still confusing especially when it just isn't accurate.
oh, also, many other projects use the term "Current" for exactly what we're using it for.
"Current" seems to be a better word indeed, since "LTS" is stable too.
This is fine. I can add this into the release but since v6 is going out before the next CTC call we'll need to get agreement here. /cc @nodejs/ctc
I have always found our usage of
Stableproblematic and am in favor ofCurrentas a replacement.go ahead and prepare a PR and we can get whatever signoff necessary.
On Apr 20, 2016, at 2:46PM, 59 notifications@github.com wrote:
also i have a bit of free time, so once this is signed off, can i make the PR?
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub #669 (comment)on it
@mikeal So I sent this simplest PR which is to update the docs in the main repo
We will also have to update the site, I think it might make sense for @fhemberger to handle that or at least someone more familiar with the code base as the word "stable" is used not only in the copy, but in css selectors and hard coded within the tests. That being said I think we should get 100% sign off before that work is done.
As far as I can tell there is nothing that needs to be updated in
/download, but perhaps someone from @nodejs/build can verify that for me.We will also have to update the copy in https://github.com/nodejs/lts
Turns out there is only a single reference to
stable, but we'll need to also update the graphic (do you know where that lives @mikeal?). If I can get a copy of a psd or illustrator file I can update thatThose are just the references I knew off the top of my head, I'll do a more in depth search after we get sign off.
5 remaining items
- There was no intention to rename lts. This was specifically to deal with the misconceptions around the term stable
This only impacts the Stable branch naming, not LTS naming.
Right, and we all know that this discussion in the past has not just touched on the stable branch. So I'd like to make sure of it.
Ok. I definitely think we should really take this past evangelism/marketing. I'm afraid a shift without warning may rub off on downstream customers badly and people may be increasingly hesitant about things if we do it with no prior publicly communicated indicator.
- added a commit that references this issue
on Apr 26, 2016 - added 2 commits that reference this issue
on Apr 26, 2016 - added a commit that references this issue
on Jun 1, 2016
There's been pretty wide agreement that we should do this for some time, we should pull the trigger before the v6 release.