[arch-dev-public] ISO Release naming scheme

Roman Kyrylych roman.kyrylych at gmail.com
Wed Sep 19 12:26:07 EDT 2007

2007/9/19, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com>:
> Wow. This clearly got a little bike-sheddy here. I'm sure we all have
> much better things to do with our time than to read and discuss the
> ISO naming scheme.

Nope, I'm just trying to find a scheme that clearly differentiate
a"major" release from a bugfix release.

> Here's the thing:
> a) YYYY.MM.X as a bug release just doesn't work for the reasons Damir
> pointed out - it looks like a day.

Arch users are not stupid. ;-)
We can even make it 2007.10-2, or 2007.10b etc.

> Maybe I'm alone here, but if I can change one character and prevent
> all of us from answering this question over and over, I'm glad to do
> it. "Why is it 2007.12.3 when it's the 24th today?"
> b) -testing.1, -dev.4, etc... I think we're trying to overspec this.


> Here's a simple solution. If we want internal release, let's use the
> dot notation that Damir suggest, but why not simply start with rel 0?
> 2007.12-0.3 -> released as 2007.12-1
> 2007.12-3.7 -> released as 2007.12-4
> We _already_ use the dot notation unofficially for the exact same
> thing. Again, we're simply alleviating lots of confusion and
> explanation here.

I only want to make the naming scheme clear for *this* case (that
already happened):
major release with brand new major kernel version is released on 2007.10.
We call it 2007.10.whatever-else-is-coming-here
Then there is a bugfix release on November.
Should we name it 2007.11.whatever
OR 2007.10.some-number-indicating-a-bugfix-release?
That's all I'm trying to make clear.

> Let's just pick one and be done with this - Jason, Dale, JGC, what do
> you guys think?

Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)

More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list