On 09/17/2015 04:16 PM, Pat McGowan wrote:
Sounds like we have a few issues.
Firs we neglected to provide a security policy as Jamie points out.
Second, the naming convention for frameworks is a bit unfortunate as it
uses the base distro release which strongly implies a tie in that is not
necessarily the case. This has been debated several times in the past.
We perhaps should have used 15.08, 15.04.1 or something completely
decoupled.
I like the fact that the framework name gives an idea of what
distribution the code is based on. We already have release names (wily,
vivid) and numbers, so I'm afraid that adding yet another convention for
framework names is only going to bring confusion. But adding a dot
release to allow the framework to be significantly updated during a
cycle (like 15.04.1) sounds like a good idea to me.
Lastly, given the gcc change Ogra rightly points out we cannot say the
same 15.10 is available on both images. While much of the API covered by
the framework is not involving compilation its a bit moot.
Indeed, now I understand it. But it would be nice if both the
vivid+overlay and the wily frameworks will be named in some way that
compares greater than "15.04".
Ciao,
Alberto
--
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
