Build Debate: Followup on Build Naming

[Martin Langhoff]

On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Martin Langhoff
<martin.langhoff at gmail.com> wrote:
>  After having worked in projects with many schemes, I
>  find that the best communicator is  a 3-part release name x.y.z
>  where...

Which is what Richard is saying too, except he is clearer ;-)

For builds that are custom in some way ("Mexico" as mentioned above),
the customisation has to be last, so

- 1.0.33
- 1.0.33-Mexico

is clear. As for a name, I would say XOOS or XO-OS. That would make my
ISOs XS-OS, which makes sense. In both cases, it is a complete OS
image. Someone may package the subset that is Sugar and its apps
separately.

Therefore we can later say that  XOOS-1.0.33 and XSOS-0.5.3 have been
tested together, and that carries a ton of information that, for
anyone following the versioning conventions used all around, is easy
to decompress and interpret. For example, if you are using XOOS-1.0.32
with XSOS-0.5.3 you probably need not worry, and in any case, a quick
read of the changelog for XOOS-1.0.33 will show you if any bugfix is
desirable to you.

cheers,


martin
-- 
 martin.langhoff at gmail.com
 martin at laptop.org -- School Server Architect
 - ask interesting questions
 - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first
 - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff