Thursday 04 October 2007, Simo Leone wrote: | Also sidenote: let's pick a new codename. Aaron? Since you're the | boss I think this one's for you :) exactly! do it every times! keep things interesting, no repetition, no going twice the same way... "may you live in interesting times!" one is suggested (see below) | Also sidenote 2: do we really need to be posting the whole | changelog to the front page news, or would something like this | suffice? """ all the changelogs should be on a separate page... collecting them from every release. | Hey Archers! Today's your lucky day because we're releasing a | brand spanking new set of ISO's! That's right, Arch 2007.10, | codenamed "Changing of the Guard", is already well on its way to | the mirrors, and seeds are popping up on the torrents. i like the new codephrase! on this, i just had the idea for the next one: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? otherwise, Tobias + Simo here two miniscule corrections i found on the corrected version: --- Arch Linux 2007.10, "Don't Panic" has been released. +++ Arch Linux 2007.10 "Don't Panic" has been released. --- As usual check md5sum before +++ As usual, check md5sum before otherwise i think everything is fine. - D -- .·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´ ° ° ° ° ° ° ><((((º> ° ° ° ° ° <º)))>< <º)))><

Thomas Bächler wrote:

I am clearly against releasing this Saturday. We should wait for 2.6.23 with the next release, as it is going to be there really soon. My guess is we could release 2007.10 with Linux 2.6.23 on October 13th or 20th.

Releasing now and then again two weeks later will only confuse people.

+1 - P

On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 03:13:20PM +0200, Pierre Schmitz wrote:

Am Donnerstag, 4. Oktober 2007 13:17:10 schrieb Thomas Bächler:

...

I am clearly against releasing this Saturday. We should wait for 2.6.23 with the next release, as it is going to be there really soon. My guess is we could release 2007.10 with Linux 2.6.23 on October 13th or 20th.

Releasing now and then again two weeks later will only confuse people.

Imho we should test this iso and release it asap. There is no technical reason to hold this back. Keep in mind that we don't have a working iso at the moment. In this case we should not wait another month for just including a newer version of the kernel.

Of course, our plan was to release a new iso whenever a new kernel version is out. But I would prefer working isos than not confusing people by a lot of releases.

I agree here. We need to get an iso out so that people can install arch again! Jason

Tobias Powalowski wrote:

...

I am clearly against releasing this Saturday. We should wait for 2.6.23 with the next release, as it is going to be there really soon. My guess is we could release 2007.10 with Linux 2.6.23 on October 13th or 20th.

Releasing now and then again two weeks later will only confuse people. Mmm let me see people complain everywhere that ftp is not working atm. Old isos have all itches and bugs, which people also complain about.

i don't see a reason to delay it, i want a stable installation iso with .22 kernel. Then we have enough time for fixing issues in .23 and release a new one at the beginning of november with a new release name. I would be really happy if someone of the dev crew would test the ISOs, yet only Romashka and Ise did a short run on iso -0.1, the rest was done by forum people. I tested ftp and hd installation with all filesystems, setup and quickinst. intel wireless was reported working by one on forum, other wireless stuff is untested but should work because no bug report about it is found on bugtracker.

About new Codename, pretty late the isos are created and so are the messages created. The descission last time was a new codename on new major kernel version, so this would be .23 not .22.

That are my thoughts about it, let's vote about releasing it. +1 from me

I was not aware the most current installer had debilitating issues. Based on the ensuing conversation, I am +1 for the release now. Especially if releasing stable .22 now will keep us from rushing the .23 release out. - P

Firstly, I wasn't aware our current ISO was that broken - next time there are issues like this, could you at least tell me (if you don't want to email the list), so I at least am aware. Secondly, I think the versioning is getting goofy here. The original intent was to change the date of the ISO when the kernel version changes, and the -X for bug fix releases. Do we need to revisit this topic? Is there confusion as to how this works... Thirdly, regarding the "codename" - I saw mention that it was "too late". In the future could you tell us before "too late" comes along? That all said, lets get this ISO out there if our current one is broken. In general, I don't have time to test these ISOs because... well, I actually don't have blank CDs at home, so I burn these things at work and bring them home - it's a big long process. Are the ISOs known to have problems under qemu or vmware?

2007/10/4, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:

Firstly, I wasn't aware our current ISO was that broken - next time there are issues like this, could you at least tell me (if you don't want to email the list), so I at least am aware.

Secondly, I think the versioning is getting goofy here.

The original intent was to change the date of the ISO when the kernel version changes, and the -X for bug fix releases. Do we need to revisit this topic? Is there confusion as to how this works...

Damn, that's exactly what I was saying few times already, when discussing release versioning scheme! :-(

Thirdly, regarding the "codename" - I saw mention that it was "too late". In the future could you tell us before "too late" comes along?

That all said, lets get this ISO out there if our current one is broken.

In general, I don't have time to test these ISOs because... well, I actually don't have blank CDs at home, so I burn these things at work and bring them home - it's a big long process.

Are the ISOs known to have problems under qemu or vmware?

As for codename - we already had Voodoo and Don't panic! (which were pretty non-standard type of codenames) let's have Hardcore now. :-D -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)

Am Donnerstag, 4. Oktober 2007 schrieb Aaron Griffin:

On 10/4/07, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych@gmail.com> wrote:

...

As for codename - we already had Voodoo and Don't panic! (which were pretty non-standard type of codenames) let's have Hardcore now. :-D

Oddly appropriate as it relates to the 'core' repo - I'm fine with it if other people are.

_______________________________________________ arch-dev-public mailing list arch-dev-public@archlinux.org http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-dev-public

New release name means package changes on ISO, it needs half a day to do this + testing again. (imho it's not worth the time for just a number and a name) Filename renaming isn't a big deal though and can be done easily Decide what to do, i know they work at least for me and some others. Please do the changes on ftp that it fits to the needs we have, announce it when you think the time is right. i'll not touch it. For those who don't know how to test isos: 1. Burn and boot or 2. run emulators like qemu or vmware (keep RAM usage in mind!) 3. extract kernel and initrd from ISO and mount ISO into booted environment install to external hardrives etc., test programs you think that are usefull etc. greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa@archlinux.org

Am Donnerstag, 4. Oktober 2007 schrieb Aaron Griffin:

Ok, here's where the confusion lies.

Let me explain the way I thought we planned on doing this, so we can see where the confusion lies.

Release: YYYY.MM Bug fix: Original YYYY.MM plus -NUM New kernel: New YYYY.MM

So, if this is a bug fix release for the 2007.09 ISO, I was under the assumption the date would remain 2007.09. I thought we had planned to only change the date when the kernel changes. In which case, the "codename" would change.

Here the date has changed. So I am assuming the codename should.

Am I the one that is confused or is it the other way around?

_______________________________________________ arch-dev-public mailing list arch-dev-public@archlinux.org http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-dev-public

There is no new kernel on it since 2007.08 it is still .22 series so it would make sense to call it 2007.08-2 greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa@archlinux.org

Am Thu, 4 Oct 2007 17:03:57 +0200 schrieb Tobias Powalowski <t.powa@gmx.de>:

i don't see a reason to delay it, i want a stable installation iso with .22 kernel. Then we have enough time for fixing issues in .23 and release a new one at the beginning of november with a new release name.

+1 for a quick bugfix release to have a working cd out. as nobody had done the 2.6.23 preparation so far we need more time for the next kernel release iso. i see no problem when only user test the rc isos. they have usually the hardware problems and have usually more time and interest in deep testing. sry, but i'm busy with other stuff right now. Andy