On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 05:52:56PM +0000, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: >> 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). >> --- >> data/oses/gnome.xml.in | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/data/oses/gnome.xml.in b/data/oses/gnome.xml.in >> index 20b4b6a..41f074c 100644 >> --- a/data/oses/gnome.xml.in >> +++ b/data/oses/gnome.xml.in >> @@ -89,4 +89,25 @@ >> </resources> >> </os> >> >> + <os id="http://gnome.org/continuous/3.12";> >> + <short-id>gnome-continuous-3.12</short-id> >> + <_name>GNOME 3.12</_name> >> + <version>3.12</version> >> + <_vendor>GNOME Project</_vendor> >> + <family>linux</family> >> + <distro>gnome</distro> >> + <derives-from id="http://gnome.org/continuous/3.10"/> >> + <upgrades id="http://gnome.org/continuous/3.10"/> >> + <is-continuous-snapshot/> >> + >> + <release-date>2014-03-25</release-date> > > Imo associating a version number with gnome continuous is weird, especially > as upstream does not seem to be doing it. We'd need some sort of 'cut-off' > date instead of a release date I think, to know when gnome-continuous > stopped tracking 3.10 and started tracking 3.12? If i understood walters correctly, the cut off date is the release date (although not so accurate, especially around the time of release) since gnome-continuous always tracks master. -- Regards, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) FSF member#5124 _______________________________________________ Libosinfo mailing list Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo
