I tweaked the proposal to have a specific proposal for release naming. The overly engineered details are at http://wiki.laptop.org/go/2008_Debate_of_Build_and_Release
Basically, I propose releases names of <organization> <component> <year> <major_version><sequence_number> [ - <special_build> ]: OLPC Sugar 2008 A1 ; by OLPC, component is Sugar; First major (API) version of 2008. Sequence 1. OLPC Activity Bundle 2008 A2 - G1G1 Update OLPC Literature Bundle 2008 A3 - G1G1 Update OLPC Activity Bundle 2008 A4 - Mexico Version OLPC Sugar 2008 B1 OLPC Activity Bundle 2008 B2 - G1G1 Update OLPC School Server 2008 A12 OLPC Sugar 2009 A15 OLPC Activities 2009 B14 OLPC Great Books 2009 B15 - Peru SPE Student Bundle 2009 A1 - Mexico Approved by Sec. de Education note that "2009 B15" is enough to uniquely identify a release. And developer builds with <group> <branch> <version_in_branch> method: OS BerryPie 94 ; build 94 by OS for code name BerryPie (for 2009 A.1) Mesh hopping 5 ; build 5 in the hopping branch the Mesh group. Mesh hopping 6 - Final ; what group hopes is a finished branch with a new feature OS BerryPie 95 - Merge ; merges in finished hopping branch. OS BerryPie 96 - Unmerge Mesh hopping 7 - Final ; really. That was the last unstable part! Mesh lowpower 1 ; new branch for another new feature. So, the two competing ideas are functional release names for functional release styles <major>.<minor> and calendar name styles <year> <major><minor>. This is a deep question: is OLPC willing to commit to time-based releases? What is an acceptable consensus before OLPC just goes with naming scheme? _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
