Proposed rom renaming change

[Jordan Crouse]

Our current ROM naming scheme in buildrom is <vendor>-<platform>.rom.
This is all nice and good, but for archiving (or rom-o-matic) purposes,
we need to be more descriptive.  Therefore, I propose that we move to
the more unwieldly, but also more descriptive:

<vendor>-<platform>-cbv[23]-<payload>.rom

Thoughts?

Jordan

[ron minnich]

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Jordan Crouse  wrote:
> Our current ROM naming scheme in buildrom is <vendor>-<platform>.rom.
> This is all nice and good, but for archiving (or rom-o-matic) purposes,
> we need to be more descriptive.  Therefore, I propose that we move to
> the more unwieldly, but also more descriptive:
>
> <vendor>-<platform>-cbv[23]-<payload>.rom

excellent idea!

ron

[Ward Vandewege]

On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 01:55:14PM -0600, Jordan Crouse wrote:
> Our current ROM naming scheme in buildrom is <vendor>-<platform>.rom.
> This is all nice and good, but for archiving (or rom-o-matic) purposes,
> we need to be more descriptive.  Therefore, I propose that we move to
> the more unwieldly, but also more descriptive:
>
> <vendor>-<platform>-cbv[23]-<payload>.rom
>
> Thoughts?

Great. I'd be happy to see a date/timestamp in there too.

Thanks,
Ward.

[Peter Stuge]

Jordan Crouse wrote:
> <vendor>-<platform>-cbv[23]-<payload>.rom

Maybe without 'v' ?

Don't mind me. I don't use buildrom that much.

On that topic - could we please remove or rename util/buildrom?

//Peter

[Marc Jones]

Ward Vandewege wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 01:55:14PM -0600, Jordan Crouse wrote:
> > Our current ROM naming scheme in buildrom is <vendor>-<platform>.rom.
> > This is all nice and good, but for archiving (or rom-o-matic) purposes,
> > we need to be more descriptive.  Therefore, I propose that we move to
> > the more unwieldly, but also more descriptive:
> >
> > <vendor>-<platform>-cbv[23]-<payload>.rom
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> Great. I'd be happy to see a date/timestamp in there too.

That would make the string really long. I think the revision is more 
relevant. A build date should follow the file date/time. I know that can 
get lost but....

I guess that the reason you want time/date is for builds that use local 
files and are not a svn co r###. What about replace the cbv[###] with 
the time/date or other user string on local builds?

More thoughts?
Marc

[Peter Stuge]

Marc Jones wrote:
> > > <vendor>-<platform>-cbv[23]-<payload>.rom
>
> What about replace the cbv[###] with the time/date or other user
> string on local builds?

Fantastic idea.

//Peter