[VOTE] using release names or not
ardeleanalex at gmail.com
Wed Oct 25 02:54:39 EDT 2017
On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Hans Dedecker <dedeckeh at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Hauke Mehrtens <hauke at hauke-m.de> wrote:
>> For the lede-17.01 release we did not use a release name, I do not
>> consider "reboot" a release name here. OpenWrt used release names in the
>> 1. Use release names for releases in addition to a release number, for
>> example 17.01 DESIGNATED DRIVER, like it was done for OpenWrt releases.
>> 2. Use no release names and only use release numbers, like it was done
>> in the LEDE 17.01 release.
> +1 for only release numbers and no release names
I also vote 2. Use no release names and only use release numbers
>> This vote is not about which release name to choose, but if we want some
>> at all, if we want some we should decide about a release name later. If
>> we later want to change the decision again, we can do a new vote and
>> change it. This would affect the naming of the current master repository
>> and the next release.
>> I am for option 2 to go without any release names because we had some
>> trouble finding and agreeing on one in the past in OpenWrt, even if they
>> are funny I think they are not needed.
>> I started this vote base on this request from Zoltan:
>> lede-adm mailing list
>> lede-adm at lists.infradead.org
> lede-adm mailing list
> lede-adm at lists.infradead.org
More information about the openwrt-adm