On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 16:53:12 +0800 xq <xiaoqu4n@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > like gentoo? > > On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Dieter Plaetinck > <dieter@xxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote: > > > 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 > > I don't know how Gentoo does it..
