[arch-releng] ISO branding (WAS: Things beyond 2009.01/02)
dieter at plaetinck.be
Thu Feb 5 07:07:49 EST 2009
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 17:18:31 -0800
Thayer Williams <thayerw at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Aaron Griffin
> <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 7:34 AM, Leandro Inacio
> > <carvalho.inacio at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Hi, folks!
> >> why don't we put "Arch Linux 2009.01" on /etc/arch-release
> >> and /etc/issue, and update it only when the filesystem is updated
> >> or when a new ISO is released?
> > Because we used to do this and people start taking version numbers
> > seriously. You get bug reports that say "I'm running ArchLinux
> > 2008.10" or something insanely stupid. I can't stress how much I _do
> > not_ want to get back to that.
> > That's the sole reason I didn't want to put a version on the ISO
> > really, because people would say things like "I installed 2008.06,
> > do I need to reinstall?"
> LOL that's sad, but I can totally see that happening! Oy but I do
> hate code names too...
So many things have been mixed up in the mails recently...
1) arch VERSION scheme eg 2009.01, 2009-2.6.28 etc. My personal view
is we should stick to the current scheme but _not_ be too pedantic (eg
if you're a bit late you don't need to change names, like which was the
case now. I would just keep calling the release 2009.01 even if we
release it in february, because that keeps things easier and no-one
should care too much anyway)
I do not think a version belongs in the target system at all, because
Arch just doesn't work like that. (but install cd's are "snapshots" so
I think they make sense there)
2) codenames (like "Don't panic") :
* on the livecd
* on the target system
Imho they may be a nice addition to the livecd (not target system),
although I also don't think they are very important. If it's easy
doable to put it in /etc/release, /etc/rc.sysinit and in the installer
menu on the livecd I would do it. If it makes things too complicated
let's not bother at all.
>> b) Release "branding"
>I don't like branding each release. It's a focus on marketing and not
>on technical pursuits. If we're telling people to use the new ISO
>because it has a better name, and not because it was actually
>improved, then we've failed.
I agree, release naming/branding should never be about marketing.
Until now I never even thought about it in a marketing-way. (as I
think so do most people)
More information about the arch-releng