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
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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"