Proposal: Fedora 21+ image naming scheme

[Andre Robatino]

On 09/03/2014 03:26 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 02:49:18PM -0400, Andre Robatino wrote:
>>>> How about Fedora-Workstation-21-Alpha-TC5-i386-netinst.iso? Same as
>>>> the download directory order, except for the placement of the $PRODUCT
>>>> field, and essentially the same as the old naming order, so less
>>>> confusing to users.
>>> You're still not answering the question why we should change it.
>>
>> I thought I just did (less confusion for users) but in any case, you
>> said that you basically just implemented Adam's proposal (with minimal
>> input) so I'd like to hear what he thinks about it. (I sent him a link
>> to my original message on IRC so he should be responding when he has time.)
> 
> I think this is mostly a bikeshed-painting kind of discussion -- I don't see
> a huge problem of confusion, and there are dozens of possible ways all with
> slight pros and cons, so it mostly comes down to picking one.

Well, generally you want the fields arranged in order of significance,
with the most significant ones on the left (basically dictionary-like
ordering), and ideally both the directory structure and the image names
should follow this. To me it appears that currently the directory
structure is much closer to this. I realize there are practical
considerations, and maybe judgment calls as to which fields are most
significant, so it doesn't have to be exact.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/rel-eng/attachments/20140903/4b586374/attachment.sig>