On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
<zeeshanak@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Daniel P. Berrange
> <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 07:00:58PM +0100, Christophe Fergeau wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 01:17:56AM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
>>> > It's silly, but I think it's worth using the tag name 'pre-release'
>>> > over 'is-snapshot', as I wouldn't be surprised if some day libosinfo
>>> > would have to differentiate between disk/image snapshot and
>>> > "official/clean" pre-release. (one could have various
>>> > personal/modified "snapshots of a particular pre-release", not the
>>> > other way around)
>>>
>>> GNOME continuous is not really a pre-release of anything. I don't really
>>> see disk snapshots showing up in libosinfo. What about <unreleased/> ?
>>
>> Are you saying that 'GNOME continuous' doesn't actually ever have
>> formal releases ?
>
> Yes. That is correct.
>
>> If so, then I agree that we should have a way to
>> distinguish between OS which follow the "continuous deployment"
>> model vs those which are pre-releases. So how about names
>>
>> <is-pre-release/>
>> <is-continuous-snapshot/>
>
> I don't think thats what Christophe proposed(?) and I don't think we
> need to have two booleans for this. Just one genericly named boolean
> prop is fine.
>
> FWIW, I think we are overthinking this. Lets just choose a name and go
> with it even if its not exactly correct ('pre-release') or there is a
> small chance for some confusion in future ('snapshot').
So shall we? If you think strongly about this, I modify these patches today.
--
Regards,
Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
FSF member#5124
_______________________________________________
Libosinfo mailing list
Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo
