Koji Tags for 8.2.0

[C. Scott Ananian]

On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 12:23 AM, Michael Stone <michael at laptop.org> wrote:
> Questions? Complaints? Pet peeves?

I'd rather rename our build roots to either correspond to fedora
releases or to olpc releases.  It seems that the 'olpc2, olpc3, ...'
numbering is a historical accident only, and just erects another
barrier to someone trying to understand how to contribute.  A new
developer might ask, "I want to tag something for the 8.2 release,
what branch should I use?" and then have to be told the arcane history
of olpc buildroots to understand why the answer is "olpc3" and not
"olpc4" (say).

Historically, we've shifted build roots only when we've moved from one
fedora major release to another.  So, "olpc-f9", "olpc-f10" would be
one naming scheme which is slightly easier to explain: you just have
to explain that 8.2 is based on fedora 9.  If the builds are named
after olpc releases ("olpc-8.2", etc) they need no explanation,
although that means that we create a new build root for (say)
"olpc-8.3" even if it weren't strictly necessary.  (Keeping the
olpc-8.2 build root for the 8.3 release would bring us back into
confusion-land.)

The one complaint I hear over and over again is that our version/build
numbering scheme is too complex and baroque.  Absent compelling
evidence to the contrary, I'd prefer to keep the names as simple as
possible, with as few different numbering schemes as possible, and
where we must have numbers, as far as possible use already existing
numbers (like fedora builds) instead of inventing our own.
 --scott

-- 
 ( http://cscott.net/ )