[Libosinfo] [libosinfo 1/4] Add an optional 'is-snapshot' tag to OS entries

[Daniel P. Berrange]

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:05:49AM +0000, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
> <zeeshanak at gnome.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Daniel P. Berrange
> > <berrange at redhat.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 07:00:58PM +0100, Christophe Fergeau wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 01:17:56AM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> >>> > It's silly, but I think it's worth using the tag name 'pre-release'
> >>> > over 'is-snapshot', as I wouldn't be surprised if some day libosinfo
> >>> > would have to differentiate between disk/image snapshot and
> >>> > "official/clean" pre-release. (one could have various
> >>> > personal/modified "snapshots of a particular pre-release", not the
> >>> > other way around)
> >>>
> >>> GNOME continuous is not really a pre-release of anything. I don't really
> >>> see disk snapshots showing up in libosinfo. What about <unreleased/> ?
> >>
> >> Are you saying that 'GNOME continuous' doesn't actually ever have
> >> formal releases ?
> >
> > Yes. That is correct.
> >
> >> If so, then I agree that we should have a way to
> >> distinguish between OS which follow the "continuous deployment"
> >> model vs those which are pre-releases. So how about names
> >>
> >>   <is-pre-release/>
> >>   <is-continuous-snapshot/>
> >
> > I don't think thats what Christophe proposed(?) and I don't think we
> > need to have two booleans for this. Just one genericly named boolean
> > prop is fine.
> >
> > FWIW, I think we are overthinking this. Lets just choose a name and go
> > with it even if its not exactly correct ('pre-release') or there is a
> > small chance for some confusion in future ('snapshot').
> 
> So shall we? If you think strongly about this, I modify these patches today.

I think the distinction is important here, because on the one hand we
have OS which are unreleased alphas/betas which are explicitly "use at
your own risk", and on the other hand you have formally supported things
which are on a 'continuous update' lifecycle. I think apps will want to
be able to distinguish between these cases. ie they will not want to
show unreleased alphas/betas by default, but they would want to show
things like GNOME continuous.

Daniel
-- 
|: http://berrange.com      -o-    http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org              -o-             http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org       -o-         http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org       -o-       http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|