Hi,
I suggest we use the following names:
2009.01-alpha
2009.01-beta
2009.01-1 (official release)
(2009.01-2, 2009.01-3 etc subsequent official releases, if required)
I think our isos/img's should have such versions in there filenames,
instead of using 2009.01 for alpha + beta + official releases.
This is useful for:
1) avoiding confusion with iso's. Users are not aware which versions
the isos are hosted on dev spaces such as
http://dev.archlinux.org/~aaron/archiso/. Hell, even for relengs/devs
it can be confusing
2) 1:1 to mapping to version numbers on flyspray. I added some versions
on flyspray (2009.01-{alpha,beta,1} etc). imo we need to update iso
names as such, so bugs can be reported on the correct versions etc,
otherwise it will be mess.
This implies a change in archiso. is that okay?
PS: i also made a version 2009.04-alpha where we can attach some
non-critical tickets to.
Dieter
