From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga05.intel.com ([192.55.52.89] helo=fmsmga101.fm.intel.com) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SIQ20-0000EP-AA for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:50:12 +0200 Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f52.google.com ([209.85.215.52]) by mga01.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 12 Apr 2012 12:39:38 -0700 Received: by lahi5 with SMTP id i5so1645459lah.25 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 12:39:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=tB2FPz+iQf7ctQWZHmYV+Uh+FC3fzeQjLw9iWQ6Tw+0=; b=I70s1UmRwUaxYdgYQmCNvyMZzDydFCr3j3+8z2VbUh29S/kXMWSix48+SU7+WbiIHU jTBncC0K7pF6Kx9CXwD+XhVtdZmnV6FDfYjBKaYxDM78rXCxbqdrmG+gSnI+RcFnZuuT iad3/lG4R1UWrcz1Wm5RH9wQzoctg2d3YGSImFI/gAG6Vmqz4SCLLag3JRQDCseytBNA sO/fnU0PFuSNs8nJgDUeWjT+b60xNbzO70CR3HpphdpcVQ+VumluamykS/Rx4CSzDDQl qSoBbiIKFP/45xQaowuHovKzZkljXcoXKs0osCawScLcIe1Wn+1sEaGSB2UagZxmGF2/ PMyQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.129.137 with SMTP id nw9mr3259173lab.48.1334259576625; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 12:39:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.102.5 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 12:39:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20120412183147.GD13291@denix.org> References: <7E680CB2A76BB8438D08CF13C09FC53A46B06325@FMSMSX151.amr.corp.intel.com> <4F84D58F.8020608@gmail.com> <1334221321.31685.24.camel@ted> <4543FDF1-0512-4B36-ABB3-DBB957B86E88@dominion.thruhere.net> <20120412183147.GD13291@denix.org> Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 12:39:36 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Flanagan, Elizabeth" To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmC52kqlVPFfgh1v8q+10eR7QubF2IzFUZ2gP4IxoJc2tD2QHz/1DRJOoyiDAxh0i9JxTvG Subject: Re: Yocto Project 1.2 M4 schedule X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 19:50:12 -0000 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0430878e1a5b1b04bd80847a --f46d0430878e1a5b1b04bd80847a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 02:32:00PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 14:22, Koen Kooi > wrote: > > > You just volunteered to handle all the "Does it work with yocto 1.2?" > questions :) > > > > > > Simply put: people are stupid, they need explicit PHB compliant names > in tags, even if it isn't 100% politically correct to say "yocto" when we > actually mean "oe-core". > > > > > > Unless the yocto 1.2 release note state that it's based on oe-core > "foo" and all layers compatible with "foo" use "foo" in tags/branches. > > > > I think layers ought to have tags for both ... > > > > -oe-core- > > -yocto- > > And -poky- for completeness? > > Seriously, "yocto"-naming schema is not that bad. For shortness, it can be > "yp-1.2" as a suffix to the layer-specific tags... > > But I'm flexible with other naming schemas, such as "YYYY.MM" or "YYYY.#" > > I'm open to whatever naming scheme people want to decide on with few caveats. That it be painstakingly documented. That it can handle point releases and release candidates. I personally like YYYY.MM schemes, but, in the end, all I care about is that it's flexible, agreed upon and very well documented. -b -- > Denys > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core > -- Elizabeth Flanagan Yocto Project Build and Release --f46d0430878e1a5b1b04bd80847a Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Denys = Dmytriyenko <denis@= denix.org> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 02:32:00PM -0300, Otavio Salvador= wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 14:22, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote:
> > You just volunteered to handle all the "Does it work with yo= cto 1.2?" questions :)
> >
> > Simply put: people are stupid, they need explicit PHB compliant n= ames in tags, even if it isn't 100% politically correct to say "yo= cto" when we actually mean "oe-core".
> >
> > Unless the yocto 1.2 release note state that it's based on oe= -core "foo" and all layers compatible with "foo" use &q= uot;foo" in tags/branches.
>
> I think layers ought to have tags for both ...
>
> <layer>-oe-core-<tag>
> <layer>-yocto-<tag>

And <layer>-poky-<tag> for completeness?

Seriously, "yocto"-naming schema is not that bad. For shortness, = it can be
"yp-1.2" as a suffix to the layer-specific tags...

But I'm flexible with other naming schemas, such as "YYYY.MM" or "YYYY.#"


I'm open to whatever naming scheme people want to decide on= with few caveats. That it be painstakingly documented. That it can handle = point releases and release candidates. I personally like YYYY.MM schemes, but, in the end, all I care about is that it&= #39;s flexible, agreed upon and very well documented.

-b

--
Denys

_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-co= re@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinf= o/openembedded-core



--
Elizabeth F= lanagan
Yocto Project
Build and Release
--f46d0430878e1a5b1b04bd80847a--