On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 04:14:38AM +0300, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: > 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). IMHO predicting future release dates is a fool's errand. Every project I know misses their predicted release dates on a non-negligible number of occasions. That's why I think it is better to list it as a "snapshot". I think it is actually a good thing that the libosinfo entry will remain tagged as "snapshot" release until manually updated, because this is also non-negligable liklihood we'll need to update URLs and other metadata. eg, all the fedora repo / ISO URLs change between Beta and GA, which will invalidate the pre-release XML. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| _______________________________________________ Libosinfo mailing list Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo
