[arch-general] consistency in iso naming

[Loui Chang]

On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 12:26:35PM +0100, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
>  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.

When the devs first announced that they'd be releasing new ISOs
according to new kernel versions I wondered why they didn't base
the iso version after the kernel version too.