From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from p3plsmtpa06-03.prod.phx3.secureserver.net ([173.201.192.104]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UF2Ex-0003Oi-B1 for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 13:54:07 +0100 Received: from llc.pab ([66.41.60.82]) by p3plsmtpa06-03.prod.phx3.secureserver.net with id ACav1l00E1mTNtu01Caw0r; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 05:34:56 -0700 Message-ID: <513DCF6F.6070405@pabigot.com> Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 07:34:55 -0500 From: "Peter A. Bigot" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130110 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org References: <1362649839-9160-1-git-send-email-koen@dominion.thruhere.net> <5138A92D.5030809@balister.org> <1820544.NMbf1lmvlI@helios> In-Reply-To: <1820544.NMbf1lmvlI@helios> Subject: Re: [meta-kde][PATCH 3/3] README: update contributor list X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:54:09 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 03/07/2013 09:41 AM, Paul Eggleton wrote: > On Thursday 07 March 2013 09:50:21 Philip Balister wrote: >> On 03/07/2013 09:41 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote: >>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Paul Eggleton >>> >>> wrote: >>>> On Thursday 07 March 2013 15:03:17 Koen Kooi wrote: >>>>> Op 7 mrt. 2013, om 14:04 heeft Martin Jansa het >>>>> >>>>> volgende geschreven: >>>>>> It would be nice to know yocto-1.4 release name in advance and name it >>>>>> the same as branch in oe-core/meta-oe will be (denzil, danny, ...), but >>>>>> I guess it can be renamed later. >>>>> For angstrom I'm going to use 'yocto-1.4' in the branch name, I have >>>>> trouble remembering which names maps to which release. And the Yocto >>>>> compliance program talks about 1.3, .14 etc, not about codenames. >>>> Wouldn't it be worth us trying to standardise rather than all doing our >>>> own >>>> thing and users having to figure out what matches up between different >>>> layers? If others feel the same as you, then maybe we should all be >>>> using that schema.> >>> Or we use a codename or we don't. >>> >>> For me, codenames work fine but for users it is sometimes confusing as >>> the website and marketing people talk about Yocto 1.3 or 1.4 while the >>> involved people talk about codenames. So I find myself explaining it >>> over and over again. >> Add me to the list of people that find codenames confusing. I can't >> reliably list releases in order by name. > FWIW, in the layer index web app against each branch I have a field for a short > description (e.g. denzil could have something like "old stable" or whatever is > helpful to explain it to people) and a sort order so that they can be sorted > correctly where listed. > > That doesn't take away the need to resolve this issue of branch names across > layers, but it may help users to understand what these codenames mean if they > continue to be used, at least when they see them in the layer index at least. A comment on that from up here in the peanut gallery: I don't personally find codenames valuable, but if they're used it would be nice if they were selected using a policy that allowed at least their relative order to be determined by inspection. That danny=1.3 sorts lexicographically before denzil=1.2 is confusing. Peter