[oe] [meta-kde][PATCH 3/3] README: update contributor list

[Martin Jansa]

On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 11:41:07AM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Paul Eggleton
> <paul.eggleton at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday 07 March 2013 15:03:17 Koen Kooi wrote:
> >> Op 7 mrt. 2013, om 14:04 heeft Martin Jansa <martin.jansa at gmail.com> het
> >> volgende geschreven:
> >> > It would be nice to know yocto-1.4 release name in advance and name it
> >> > the same as branch in oe-core/meta-oe will be (denzil, danny, ...), but
> >> > I guess it can be renamed later.
> >>
> >> For angstrom I'm going to use 'yocto-1.4' in the branch name, I have trouble
> >> remembering which names maps to which release. And the Yocto compliance
> >> program talks about 1.3, .14 etc, not about codenames.
> >
> > Wouldn't it be worth us trying to standardise rather than all doing our own
> > thing and users having to figure out what matches up between different layers?
> > If others feel the same as you, then maybe we should all be using that schema.
> 
> Or we use a codename or we don't.
> 
> For me, codenames work fine but for users it is sometimes confusing as
> the website and marketing people talk about Yocto 1.3 or 1.4 while the
> involved people talk about codenames. So I find myself explaining it
> over and over again.

Yes I usually need to use both names, because some people want to hear
"Yocto". 

But "Yocto 1.3" alone sometimes does not work in sentences like 
"Update oe-core to latest revision in danny branch (Yocto 1.3)"
"Update bitbake to latest revision in 1.16 branch which is compatible with danny branches (Yocto
1.3)"

So I agree it's confusing, like in this pull-request
https://github.com/openwebos/build-webos/pull/25

Yes, I always forget to add "Project" :/.

-- 
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-devel/attachments/20130307/b0b0f75a/attachment-0002.sig>