On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 12:26:35PM +0100, Dieter Plaetinck wrote: > 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. When the devs first announced that they'd be releasing new ISOs according to new kernel versions I wondered why they didn't base the iso version after the kernel version too.
