On 06/07/2014 06:56 AM, Tim Bell wrote:
A few quick thoughts....
- Does the SIG need a naming convention also, e.g.
CentOS-7.1407-Cloud-140805
i.e. the cloud SIG based build done on 5th August 2014 based off the CentOS 7 tree in July 2014.
- The minor release number is not in the naming convention. Is this a question of length ?
CentOS-7.0-1407
I am thinking as we get to beta releases of 7.1, having a mechanism to name the beta releases independently of the production ones would be useful.
We have debated the SIG TAG, and then left if open for list debate as there are a few options here.
Firstly, if a SIG can achieve everything it needs in terms of mounting optional repo's and adding options to the installer non harming then there is no need require a SIG tag. However if a SIG requires a release that changes the kernel and wants to create an ISO for that then it clearly requires the use of a SIG tag as we can't break core. The 3rd case would be if a SIG release and does not affect the core ISO / install, just in it's own repo, it may want to indicate to users it has made a release.
We came up with a few ideas around these with various merits which I can post a bit later to list. This aspect we should work through with the SIGs on this list. We may want to try release a few SIGs before we fully define the SIG TAG rules.
Carl.