Build Debate: Followup on Build Naming

[Aaron Konstam]

On Thu, 2008-04-10 at 10:32 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> On Thursday 10 April 2008, Charles Merriam wrote:
> > >  Thanks for formalising this, I would also strongly suggest that the
> > >  organisation is moved to the far right, and that we get rid of year.
> > >
> > >  <component> <major> <minor> <bugfix> <organisation>
> >
> > I strongly suggest we keep the year.
> >
> > Yes, really, OLPC should release new software at least once per year.
> > It should dump support for software two or more years old.   It should
> > release based on time, not feature.
> >
> > Also, why add a minor-minor (bugfix) number?
>  I strongly feel that we should not put the year in releases.
> 
> I personally think that we should use
> OLPC-<Version>.<bugfix> for the os 
> so what has previously been called update.1  should be OLPC-2.0
> 
> any bug fixes based on this would be OLPC-2.1 etc
> 
> Dennis
The question is really would the date be information that is useful. I
am not sure. My feeling is that at the rate things are going with
development it would not. Who cares for example if f8 came out in 2007
or 2008 and why would that be important information?
--
=======================================================================
The means-and-ends moralists, or non-doers, always end up on their ends
without any means. -- Saul Alinsky
=======================================================================
Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: akonstam at sbcglobal.net