On Thu, 2004-08-12 at 19:36, Jason Huebel wrote:
> On Thursday 12 August 2004 6:20 pm, John Davis wrote:
> > Precisely! When seemant and I first talked about the cascading profile
> > implementation, we had every intention of avoiding release specific
> > versioning scheme. AFAIK, this is still the case. I still think that
> > this is the best route to follow due to the fact that not much changes
> > between releases. If there are special cases (take xorg for example), we
> > can always make an exception to the rule.
> 
> Maybe it would make more sense to have yearly refreshes of the profiles, with 
> profile "revisions" during the year using -r#. For instance, 2004 would have:
> 
> default-linux/amd64/2004 (equivalent to the 2004.0 profile)
> default-linux/amd64/2004-r1 (equivalent to the 2004.2 profile)
> 
> Then next year (even though it isn't strictly necessary), we could have:
> 
> default-linux/amd64/2005
> 
> It would basically be the same as the last 2004 revision, but I can't think of 
> a better major version number than using the year.  Then we could have 
> revisions after that.
> 
> Actually, we might even be able to do something like this:
> 
> default-linux/amd64/2005/r0
> default-linux/amd64/2005/r1
> 
> ... and so on.  Thoughts?


I like the major versioning, but do we really need the minor versions? I
see that as a throwback to what we are doing now. The reason that I want
to drop release-based versioning is to avoid the needless replication of
data since the profiles between same year releases are so similar.

BTW - we really should start a GLEP about this ;)

Cheers,
-- 
John Davis
Gentoo Linux Developer
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~zhen>

----
GnuPG Public Key: <http://dev.gentoo.org/~zhen/zhen_pub.asc>
Fingerprint: 4F9E 41F6 D072 5C1A 636C  2D46 B92C 4823 E281 41BB