My personal preference would be for ${name}-${version}.tar.bz2 as
well, but 2nd place would be ${name}-stable-${version}.tar.bz2.
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Tren Blackburn <t...@eotnetworks.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Jimmy Tang <jt...@tchpc.tcd.ie> wrote:
>>
>> On 14 Nov 2012, at 16:14, Sage Weil wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Appending the codename to the version string is something we did with
>>> argonaut (0.48argonaut) just to make it obvious to users which stable
>>> version they are on.
>>>
>>> How do people feel about that? Is it worthwhile? Useless? Ugly?
>>>
>>> We can certainly skip it for 0.55 bobtail…
>>
>> Just throwing in some thoughts, but how about a scheme like
>> ${name}-stable-${version}.tar.bz2 and have the corresponding directory
>> structure inside and just ditch code names in the tar ball filename? It
>> doesn't look as nice with out a codename, but it makes it absolutely clear
>> to new users that it is a stable release.
>>
> Personally, I'd prefer standard naming of ${name}-${version}.tar.bz2.
> You make it clear on your site which version is the LTS release, and
> which are the developer releases.
>
> t.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
