Re: [AD] "unstable" terminology

To: alleg-developers@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [AD] "unstable" terminology
From: Chris <chris.kcat@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 05:10:00 -0800
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:x-accept-language:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=roY7auqGaA7zsnrcjLlWkGELtpkCwUhU6qJjMz7m6br2Cc1/O7Y2w7UxnzCkRADzv5GunbkBTHjY7yEo/H6xo13J5ucOY0wdi9NLPdjZt1tSrbeI7smQODCflU/H4i9/ubJ8yUy06x9etgSi0ScsH+8Lq/ct0OL8yid8xQ5T76M=

Grzegorz Adam Hankiewicz wrote:

On 2005-01-05, Matthew Leverton <meffer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Also, is "developEment" (with the E) a british thing? ;) In any case,
"development" is a noun, so -al should be added.

Development branch/release is an adjective+noun, isn't it? I think it'skinda silly if they're both nouns.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [AD] "unstable" terminology
  - From: Matthew Leverton

References:
- [AD] "unstable" terminology
  - From: Matthew Leverton
- Re: [AD] "unstable" terminology
  - From: Grzegorz Adam Hankiewicz

Mail converted by MHonArc 2.6.19+