[arch-dev-public] ISO Bug Release naming scheme

[Aaron Griffin]

On 9/18/07, Dan McGee <dpmcgee at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/18/07, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at 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.