[arch-dev-public] ISO Release naming scheme

Roman Kyrylych roman.kyrylych at gmail.com
Wed Sep 19 03:49:21 EDT 2007

2007/9/19, Damir Perisa <damir.perisa at 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)

More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list