Build Debate: Followup on Build Naming

[Aaron Konstam]

On Tue, 2008-04-08 at 14:40 -0300, Martin Langhoff wrote:
> 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
I guess I changed my mind the x.y.z names seem the best system of all
the suggestions.
--
=======================================================================
Never ask the barber if you need a haircut.
=======================================================================
Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: akonstam at sbcglobal.net