Talk:2008 Debate of Build and Release

From OLPC
Revision as of 17:46, 9 April 2008 by CharlesMerriam (talk | contribs) (Wiki problem. Bad edit comments link.)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Put in your comments

Also use: 

 ~~~~

to sign your comments and questions.

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.
Retrieved from "http://wiki.laptop.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Talk:2008_Debate_of_Build_and_Release&oldid=124558"