Hi,
anonym wrote (03 Jun 2015 11:22:31 GMT) :
> On 06/03/2015 12:26 PM, intrigeri wrote:
>> Note that strictly speaking, we don't need the "Tails_" prefix. Also,
>> I would find it nice to clearly distinguish the "target versions" that
>> will be 100% reached on a flag day, and by releasing a given Tails
>> only (e.g. Tails/Jessie), from the ones that are more general
>> milestones. So, that could become:
>>
>> * 2.0 => Milestone_Sustainability
>> * 3.0 => Milestone_Hardening
>> * 4.0 => Tails_Jessie
>>
>> Thoughts?
> This makes sense but "Milestone_" feels like a redundant prefix in a
> field called "Milestone".
Well, the field is called "Target version".
> Do we really need a prefix at all?
Maybe not, but I like the fact that "milestone" expresses something
that's specific and measurable. I'm afraid that if we drop it, then
these target version names will look like generic categories to which
we can add anything that fits into what their name expresses.
> Also, for the "general" milestones, I guess they be recurring ones. E.g.
> the one that's currently called 3.0 is perhaps only an initial push for
> such related things, but maybe there will be another one. Reusing
> milestones seems like a bad idea, so perhaps they too can be versioned,
> e.g.:
> * 2.0 => Sustainability_1.0
> * 3.0 => Hardening_1.0
Totally makes sense, and even better, it addresses the concern
I expressed above.
But I'm worried that using such version numbers, especially
two-components ones in the same range as Tails releases', will be
confusing, so my current proposal would be:
* 2.0 => Sustainability_M1
* 3.0 => Hardening_M1
("M" means "milestone", I think I've seen that used elsewhere in
similar contexts)
Cheers!
--
intrigeri
_______________________________________________
Tails-dev mailing list
Tails-dev@boum.org
https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev
To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to
tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
