8836 2015-12-17 12:15:34 +0000 YP release naming must be fixed 2016-02-15 15:46:58 +0000 1 1 5 Infrastructure AutoBuilder autobuilder 2.1 x86 Multiple VERIFIED FIXED High critical 2.1 M2 1 alexandru.c.georgescu elizabeth.flanagan bogdanx.a.voiculescu elizabeth.flanagan infras.ab.watcher Infras.watcher richard.purdie stanciux.mihail --- --- Yes (doc changes required) oldest_to_newest 57341 0 alexandru.c.georgescu 2015-12-17 12:15:34 +0000 Usually our in-house testing framework depends on the YP naming of the releases. The release name must have an agreed syntax, such as: yocto-[YP_RELEASE_VERSION]_[MILESTONE_VERSION].[RELEASE_CANDIDATE_VERSION] example: yocto-2.0_M1.rc1 exmple: yocto-2.0+shapshot_M1.rc1 Also, we need an agreement on the YP_RELEASE_VERSION. E.g. if we are working on 2.1 release master, are we using a 2.0+snapshot as YP_RELEASE_VERSION? or 2.1 as YP_RELEASE_VERSION? This process must be written in the release process wiki/documentation. 57358 1 elizabeth.flanagan 2015-12-17 17:49:15 +0000 Some changes that we've made to the autobuilder, (specifically around ensuring that the yocto-<DISTRO_VERSION> naming) have ended up biting us slightly here. I'm proposing that we change the milestone naming to whatever DISTRO_VERSION is and document this. It's more accurate. A perfect example of this was 1.9/2.0. We had yocto-1.9_M1 which technically is wrong. We should be doing: yocto-2.0+snapshot_M1.rc1 as that is most accurate to what we are doing, IMHO. I'll send an email to the list once I get email access back. 57990 2 elizabeth.flanagan 2016-01-20 13:00:19 +0000 http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/yocto-autobuilder/commit/?id=d2fa9f20e1eb2ba4f623bf6e92a7bcd07b91da75 57992 3 elizabeth.flanagan 2016-01-20 13:01:43 +0000 marking resolved 59023 4 stanciux.mihail 2016-02-15 15:46:58 +0000 Verified changes in code and on public AB.