From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UDcAb-0006wz-D1 for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 15:51:53 +0100 Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 07 Mar 2013 06:35:11 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,803,1355126400"; d="scan'208";a="296819833" Received: from unknown (HELO helios.localnet) ([10.255.12.181]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 07 Mar 2013 06:35:07 -0800 From: Paul Eggleton To: Koen Kooi Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 14:35:06 +0000 Message-ID: <9088096.rvOOlWx1VE@helios> Organization: Intel Corporation User-Agent: KMail/4.10 (Linux/3.5.0-24-generic; KDE/4.10.0; i686; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <1362649839-9160-1-git-send-email-koen@dominion.thruhere.net> <20130307130435.GI32228@jama.dyndns-home.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org, Martin Jansa 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: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 14:51:53 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre