On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 7:43 PM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) <zeeshanak@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Oh and talking of release date, isn't a release date in future already an indication that this OS entry is a snapshot? Especially if we point this out clearly in the docs? If we don't add a separate tag, we'll not end up with entries marked as snapshots that are released already in case we forget to update them (which I'm sure we will). -- Regards, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) FSF member#5124 _______________________________________________ Libosinfo mailing list Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo