Hi Ben We touched this topic on a TC meeting on Wednesday Would not hurt to repeat and record as a rule though
Thanks for raising > On 4Mar, 2016, at 12:57, Ben Bullard <[email protected]> wrote: > > We should set some kind of convention for naming .iso files so as to avoid > confusion about whether a specific build is/isn't Alpha, Beta, RC, or GA. See > these threads in fantastic new unified forum: > > http://ml.openmandriva.org/pipermail/om-cooker_ml.openmandriva.org/2016-January/000072.html > > <http://ml.openmandriva.org/pipermail/om-cooker_ml.openmandriva.org/2016-January/000072.html> > > https://forum.openmandriva.org/t/most-recent-development-iso-build-14378-this-isnt-the-beta-release/301 > > <https://forum.openmandriva.org/t/most-recent-development-iso-build-14378-this-isnt-the-beta-release/301> > > In this instance I replaced 'beta' in file names to 'dev-rel' short for > 'development-release'. That's one way to do it. But perhaps it would be even > better to have build ID # in file name something like: > > This is actually originally rugyada's idea. Quoting rugyada here: > > Perhaps that could be done instead of 'dev-rel'? > I'd say > OpenMandrivaLx.2015.0-dev-rel14378-PLASMA.x86_64.iso > > or for better reading > OpenMandrivaLx.2015.0-dev-rel_14378-PLASMA.x86_64.iso > > I'd avoid whatever definition (alpha/beta/etc.) at all in development > releases file name. > People do know that are dev-rel and in which development stage we are > -- > Ben Bullard > ben79 > -------------------- > OpenMandriva-QA Team > > _______________________________________________ > OM-QA mailing list > [email protected] > http://ml.openmandriva.org/mailman/listinfo/om-qa_ml.openmandriva.org
_______________________________________________ OM-Cooker mailing list [email protected] http://ml.openmandriva.org/mailman/listinfo/om-cooker_ml.openmandriva.org
