Multi-laptop naming scheme for build files

[Daniel Drake]

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Martin Langhoff
<martin.langhoff at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hmmm. Maybe we can "shift our window" a bit, and drop the decade to
> pick up the major release.
>
> So 12.1.x ==> 21, and 12.2 ==> 22
>
>> We will hit 4-digit build numbers at some point
>
> Only for official builds, and there we are not following this scheme;
> and if we do switch to follow this scheme then I expect official
> builds to follow the numbering sequence.
>
> so _if_ we switch official builds to this scheme, I'd expect for example
>
>  21098o1.zd4 <== last dev build of the 12.1.0 series
>  21099o1.zd4 <== official build , or maybe change "o" for "os" so 21100os1.zd4

This is feeling horribly cryptic now.  But it seems like a solid
proposal until 2020, so if you're sure the crypticness is worth the
hassle, I think we can go with it. Just to clarify for others, the
proposed scheme is:
 1. Fourth digit of four-digit year, e.g. "2" in 2012, "3" in 2013
 2. Second component of the build stream. For 12.1.0, that's "1". For
12.2.0, thats "2".
 3. Three-digit zero-padded build number, e.g. 098
 4. An alphabetic 'deployment identifier', max 2 characters if wanting
to target FAT media. OLPC will use "o", deployments may wish to use
their two-letter country code.
 5. A numeric code identifying the target laptop model. 1=XO1,
2=XO1.5, 3=XO1.75, etc
 6. A '.'
 7. The extension (e.g. zd)

So 21099o1.img is 12.1.0 build 99 for XO-1, from OLPC.

We need to think carefully if there are any considerations in the
stable stream of upgrading from build 883 to (e.g.) build 99 (breaking
the always-incrementing sequence), and any effects this might have on
users. Two things that spring to mind are:
 - Sugar needs to show the stream (we should have done this a while ago...)
 - olpc-update command-line syntax may need a little rethink to make
things flow well (again something that is pending for a while)

but overall I think we're in good shape for picking this up.

Daniel