On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Denys Dmytriyenko <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 02:32:00PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 14:22, Koen Kooi <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > You just volunteered to handle all the "Does it work with yocto 1.2?" > questions :) > > > > > > Simply put: people are stupid, they need explicit PHB compliant names > in tags, even if it isn't 100% politically correct to say "yocto" when we > actually mean "oe-core". > > > > > > Unless the yocto 1.2 release note state that it's based on oe-core > "foo" and all layers compatible with "foo" use "foo" in tags/branches. > > > > I think layers ought to have tags for both ... > > > > <layer>-oe-core-<tag> > > <layer>-yocto-<tag> > > And <layer>-poky-<tag> for completeness? > > Seriously, "yocto"-naming schema is not that bad. For shortness, it can be > "yp-1.2" as a suffix to the layer-specific tags... > > But I'm flexible with other naming schemas, such as "YYYY.MM" or "YYYY.#" > > I'm open to whatever naming scheme people want to decide on with few caveats. That it be painstakingly documented. That it can handle point releases and release candidates. I personally like YYYY.MM schemes, but, in the end, all I care about is that it's flexible, agreed upon and very well documented. -b -- > Denys > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core > -- Elizabeth Flanagan Yocto Project Build and Release
_______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
