2007/9/19, Damir Perisa <damir.perisa@solnet.ch>:
Wednesday 19 September 2007, Aaron Griffin wrote: | I thought we agreed in the dev meeting to keep the filenames clean | (something like archlinux-YYYY.MM-REL.iso or similar), but I may | be wrong, that was a while ago.
i do not remember as well, but
archlinux-YYYY.MM-REL-TYPE-ARCH.iso
where TYPE is core/ftp/cd/dvd/full/... (core=only core, ftp=ftpinstall, cd=max690MB, dvd=max4.6GB, full=everything we have)
speaking about: can we also make a standard about how the REL will increase?
dev.{1...} for internal (dev only releases, non-public) testing.{1...} for testing isos (public) 1 for the release {2..x} for bugfixes, increasing in real numbers so that the end user sees only REL as real number, whereas testers and devs (people more involved and less PR-important) releases are marked clearly.
OK, I've missed the whole discussion so I have few questions: 1) YYYY.MM will stay the same as when the kernel was released, i.e. the bugfix for 2007.10-1 release will be 2007.10-2 even if it will be in November? I think it is OK as it clearly states that they are using the same kernel (and they will have the same codename). 2) What's wrong with YYYY.MM = release, YYYY.MM.{1,2,3,...} - bugfix release (e.g. 2007.08 and 2007.08.1)? Sorry, I don't want to start another round of discussion, I'm just curious. -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)