[arch-general] consistency in iso naming

[Dieter Plaetinck]

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 16:53:12 +0800
xq <xiaoqu4n at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> >

I don't know how Gentoo does it..