On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Daniel Drake wrote:
> For 12.1.1 would you reset to build 1 (causing a
> potential-but-harmless name conflict), or would you continue on from
> the last build number of 12.1.0?
I'd continue.
Agreed is cryptic. We're packing a lot of info in 8 chars.
cheers,
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Martin Langhoff
wrote:
>> This won't provide uniqueness between 12.1.0 build 3 and 12.2.0 build
>> 3, for example, but I don't think we are shooting for perfection in
>> terms of conflict avoidance, right?
>
> Hmmm. Maybe we can "shift our window" a bit, and drop t
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Martin Langhoff
wrote:
> Hmmm. Maybe we can "shift our window" a bit, and drop the decade to
> pick up the major release.
>
> So 12.1.x ==> 21, and 12.2 ==> 22
>
>> We will hit 4-digit build numbers at some point
>
> Only for official builds, and there we are not f
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Daniel Drake wrote:
> I'm not personally convinced that these are hard requirements, at
> least the first one.
Well, we switched streams for arm builds at least once (maybe twice)
so in the last ~12 months, there are two "os30 for arm" builds. Only
yesterday I ca
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Martin Langhoff
wrote:
> We also need
>
> - a stream id - perhaps 2-digit year for the development builds
> - a "custom stream" identifier for non OLPC builds
I'm not personally convinced that these are hard requirements, at
least the first one. Our release buil
Why not use the extension to identify the hardware, and the file name part for
the software?
This is already partially true - .zd2, .zd4, .zd8 refer to hardware
configurations. Could as well be 3z4 for a 4 GB XO-1.5, and 5z8 for an 8 GB
XO-1.75.
- Bert -
_
+1 to identify the stream.
Gonzalo
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Martin Langhoff wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Daniel Drake wrote:
> > Some work needs to be done before that is possible, but we also need a
> > naming scheme. I think the key considerations for this are:
>
> We a
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Daniel Drake wrote:
> Some work needs to be done before that is possible, but we also need a
> naming scheme. I think the key considerations for this are:
We also need
- a stream id - perhaps 2-digit year for the development builds
- a "custom stream" identifie
qu...@laptop.org said:
> The build number meaning has become overloaded. I dislike having it
> exposed.
You have to expose something that's unique for each build so you can talk
about which versions do/don't have a particular bug or feature.
I think a sequential number is about as good as you
Based on this and previous discussions I think we could go with something like:
1. single-character ID for product type. 'a' for XO-1, 'b' for XO-1.5,
'c' for XO-1.75, ...
2. build number
3. a "."
4. extension
Thoughts/other ideas?
I suggest you should allocate at least one additional charact
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 06:02:29PM -0600, Daniel Drake wrote:
> It could lead to confusion though - q2.img (if that's what
> your suggesting) sounds very much like a firmware file by our current
> convention.
As the firmware is typically shipped in the operating system, I don't
think this confusio
And this?
o2b883.img
that means:o (like a old 'os')2 (for XO 1) b (build)883 the number
o for the image.. q for firmware...
AlanDate: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 21:14:11 -0300
Subject: Re: Multi-laptop naming scheme for build files
From: gonz...@laptop.org
To: d...@laptop.org
CC: devel@lists.
May be i2, i3,i4, i5, the id is the number.
Gonzalo
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Daniel Drake wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Gonzalo Odiard
> wrote:
> > Why not use the same prexix as in the firmware:
> >
> > XO-3 = Q5
> > XO-1.75 = Q4
> > XO-1.5 = Q3
> > XO-1 = Q2
> >
> > Is no
Personally I think the convention should be the same, even if we have to
add a dash, or reverse the historical build numbering approach (e.g.
880os1.zd4 -- presuming 8.3 filenames legally can start with a number).
Telling a non-technical user to "copy all the files ending in 0 & 2" is a
lot easier
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
> Why not use the same prexix as in the firmware:
>
> XO-3 = Q5
> XO-1.75 = Q4
> XO-1.5 = Q3
> XO-1 = Q2
>
> Is not better, but value is having a single convention.
It could lead to confusion though - q2.img (if that's what
your suggesting) s
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Samuel Greenfeld wrote:
> For example: If fs.zip is not found, an XO-1 will try fs0.zip, an XO-1.5
> will try fs1.zip, and an XO-1.75 will try fs2.zip. The same is true with
> bootfw.zip & other files used by XOs when security is enabled.
Yes, I agree. My thread
What James is referring to is that newer Open Firmware builds *already*
know to use 0,1,2 to distinguish signed XO-1, 1.5, & 1.75 installation
files respectively.
The unsigned files still need a scheme to be made distinguishable; but
unless we want to change OFW we should stick with what it knows.
Why not use the same prexix as in the firmware:
XO-3 = Q5
XO-1.75 = Q4
XO-1.5 = Q3
XO-1 = Q2
Is not better, but value is having a single convention.
Gonzalo
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Daniel Drake wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Right now, build files for XO-1.5 and XO-1.75 have the same filename
> (#
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:24:07PM +, Alan Jhonn Aguiar Schwyn wrote:
> > 1. single-character ID for product type. 'a' for XO-1, 'b' for XO-1.5,
> > 'c' for XO-1.75, ...
> > 2. build number
> > 3. a "."
> > 4. extension
> >
> > e.g.
> >
> > 'a900.img' - build 900 copy-nand image for XO-1
> > 'b
> 1. single-character ID for product type. 'a' for XO-1, 'b' for XO-1.5,
> 'c' for XO-1.75, ...
> 2. build number
> 3. a "."
> 4. extension
>
> e.g.
>
> 'a900.img' - build 900 copy-nand image for XO-1
> 'b900.zd4' - build 900 4GB image for XO-1.5
> 'c900.zd4' - build 900 4GB image for XO-1.75
>
Hi,
Right now, build files for XO-1.5 and XO-1.75 have the same filename
(#11226). There have been a few requests that we move to a naming
scheme that has a different filename in this case so that the files
can live together on a USB disk and generally not be so easily
confused.
Some work needs t
21 matches
Mail list logo
