Koji Tags for 8.2.0

[Dennis Gilmore]

On Friday 13 June 2008, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> 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

Scott, 

I fully agree  which is why i said what i said 
http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/2008-April/012513.html and
http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/2008-April/012644.html

moving forward  if we used say olpc-f9  what disttag should we use.  if  we 
use .fc9  as fedora uses its harder to easily see what packages we diverge 
on.   i like .olpc3  as its clear  that we have diverged on those packages 
and anything .fc9 comes from fedora.  i don't particularly like .olpcf9   but 
that's certainly an option. 

Dennis

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20080613/f045f277/attachment.sig>