Bug 8836

Summary: YP release naming must be fixed
Product: [Infrastructure] AutoBuilder Reporter: Alexandru Georgescu <alexandru.c.georgescu>
Component: autobuilderAssignee: Beth Flanagan <elizabeth.flanagan>
Status: VERIFIED FIXED QA Contact: Mihail Stanciu <stanciux.mihail>
Severity: critical    
Priority: High CC: bogdanx.a.voiculescu, elizabeth.flanagan, infras.ab.watcher, Infras.watcher, richard.purdie
Version: 2.1   
Target Milestone: 2.1 M2   
Hardware: x86   
OS: Multiple   
Whiteboard:
OS type for building Yocto: --- Type of Regression: ---
Verified: Documentation change: Yes (doc changes required)

Description Alexandru Georgescu 2015-12-17 12:15:34 UTC 
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.
Comment 1 Beth Flanagan 2015-12-17 17:49:15 UTC 
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.
Comment 3 Beth Flanagan 2016-01-20 13:01:43 UTC 
marking resolved
Comment 4 Mihail Stanciu 2016-02-15 15:46:58 UTC 
Verified changes in code and on public AB.