Talk:2008 Debate of Build and Release&action=edit: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Summary of devel naming thread.) |
(Wiki problem. Bad edit comments link.) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
You got here by following a bad link. Go to [[Talk:2008 Debate of Build and Release]] and hit edit. |
|||
== Put in your comments == |
|||
Also use: |
|||
<pre> |
|||
~~~~ |
|||
</pre> to sign your comments and questions. |
|||
[[User:CharlesMerriam|CharlesMerriam]] 06:42, 5 April 2008 (EDT) |
|||
== Summary of devel naming thread. == |
|||
The actual naming of "update 1" has created a long thread on the devel mailing list. This thread shows the expected friction between time based release names and function based release names. Following the "Can't tell your players without a program" rule, here's a short summary: |
|||
== Summary of devel thread to 8 Apr 2008 == |
|||
* Micheal stone: no problem |
|||
* Andres Salomon: hmm. Apple Blueberry (named alphabetical) |
|||
* Gary Martin: No, official-703.. No to OLPC2 thats hardware |
|||
* Dennis Gilmore: OLPC2. Oh, an the next hardware is XO-2 and should |
|||
* have same releases. |
|||
* Simon: 802.month or 802.season to push exact time. OLPC-2 type |
|||
naming for feature based. |
|||
* Morgan: use internal names without exact ship times in case we missed. |
|||
* Arron Konstom: outward consistency counts. No update-1-703, even if |
|||
we did it before. Actually <hardware version>.<major |
|||
software>.<minor software> is best. |
|||
* Walter Bender: Seasons are out. Feature based naming will slip. |
|||
XO-2 is hardware. OLPC-2, er Sugar-2, maybe OLPC-Fedora 1 is software. |
|||
Names are hard. We will ship based on time. |
|||
* Paul Fox: OLPC doesn't sound like software. Start with high numbers. |
|||
* Tomeu Vizoso: Sugar sounds like software. |
|||
* Kent Loobey: Schools really want predictable dates. Let's use |
|||
solstices which aren't. |
|||
* Polychronis Ypodimatopoulos: Prefixes shouldn't get tooooo long. |
|||
* Richard Smith: How about feature based? <hardware version>.<major |
|||
software>.<minor software> |
|||
* Mitch Bradley: What are we releasing? OLPC <component> <Generation> <Ordinal> |
|||
* Jim Gettys: Note that OS protocol changes may or may not change all |
|||
Activity binaries. |
|||
* Martin Langoff: Feature based, <major software (API)>.<minor |
|||
software (Stability)>.<bugfix> - <country>, with some interaction with |
|||
ISO numbers. Let's start with 0. something since the API isn't |
|||
stable. |
|||
* Mitch Bradley: Feature based with letters, .10 doesn't work too well. |
|||
* Morgan Collect: Right 7.10 is said as "7.1" and 7.04 and "7" |
|||
* Charles Merriam: Use <OLPC or creator> <component> <year> <major revision>:<minor revision> [- <special build>] |
|||
== Two competing naming themes == |
|||
=== Option 1: Functional naming === |
|||
* Use: some version of <component name> <major (API) version> . <minor (patch) version> |
|||
** no consensus on how to designate special builds; patch number versus suffix. |
|||
** no discussion on how much constitutes a "major" API change. |
|||
=== Option 2: Naming incorporating a year === |
|||
* Still my minority view. It is listed as the minimum buy-in before I work seriously on a build system. |
|||
* I'm adding it the main page as additional specification. |
|||
Latest revision as of 17:47, 9 April 2008
You got here by following a bad link. Go to Talk:2008 Debate of Build and Release and hit edit.