[arch-general] consistency in iso naming

[xq]

like gentoo?

On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Dieter Plaetinck <dieter at plaetinck.be>wrote:

> Hi,
> I suggest we use the following names:
> 2009.01-alpha
> 2009.01-beta
> 2009.01-1 (official release)
> (2009.01-2, 2009.01-3 etc subsequent official releases, if required)
>
> I think our isos/img's should have such versions in there filenames,
> instead of using 2009.01 for alpha + beta + official releases.
> This is useful for:
> 1) avoiding confusion with iso's.  Users are not aware which versions the
> isos are hosted on dev spaces such as
> http://dev.archlinux.org/~aaron/archiso/.  Hell, even for relengs/devs it
> can be confusing
> 2) 1:1 to mapping to version numbers on flyspray.  I added some versions on
> flyspray (2009.01-{alpha,beta,1} etc). imo we need to update iso names as
> such, so bugs can be reported on the correct versions etc, otherwise it will
> be mess.
>
> This implies a change in archiso. is that okay?
>
> PS: i also made a version 2009.04-alpha where we can attach some
> non-critical tickets to.
>
> Dieter
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/attachments/20090125/94c89fc2/attachment.htm>