On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Daniel P. Berrange <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 07:03:36PM +0300, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 12:50 AM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) >> <zeeshanak@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > From: "Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)" <zeeshanak@xxxxxxxxx> >> > >> > gnome-continuous is continuous integration system so images produced by >> > it track the git master of all modules and now that GNOME 3.10 is out and >> > many projects have branched for 3.10 maintainance, these images are >> > already 3.12 (3.11 at the moment but thats splitting hair I guess). >> > --- >> >> So how about this patch? > > I have the same concerns about this that I do for the patch you > proposed for Fedora rawhide. Namely that OS in libosinfo have > some implied long term stability, but these are by definition > moving targets. > > I understand your desire to include them though. > > Perhaps we should address this by adding a tag to the XML element > indicating whether an OS is a formal release, or a snapshot ? That > way apps can at least distinguish the two if they have a need to > so, and we can declare that any OS database entry marked as a > "snapshot" is liable to change arbitrarily over time. Sounds good to me, as long as we agree to add 'release-date' (if known) as I'll need that to map a specific image to a specific OS entry in the db in the app. -- Regards, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) FSF member#5124 _______________________________________________ Libosinfo mailing list Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo
