On 9/18/07, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/18/07, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey all, This is something that was never really discussed outright, so it's time to bring it up.
Wel all agreed on a YYYY.MM naming scheme for our isos, but tacking on a release number (for bug fixes) makes it look like a day (in date format).
Assuming we won't have bug releases is short sighted, so I think we should discuss a proper format for this, as it was never covered.
Personally, I like:
YYYY.MM-RELEASE
for _all_ release. So the next kernel release would be:
2007.10-1
Opinions?
This seems to fit the way we do package versioning as well. Hopefully the vast majority of our releases never see a version past 1.
That's what I was thinking too.
What do we do in the last case, however? Should the ISO have been re-dated to the current month? Although our planned releases are following the kernel, there seems to be no need to keep our release numbers following the kernel (which they truly aren't anyway).
Good point. Hmmm. I dunno, I mean we should differentiate between a new kernel ISO and a bug release ISO. Somehow. I think changing the YYYY.MM when the kernel changes, and the -X on a bug fix release is a valid indicator.