> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_fedora_image_naming_po... > Is there a reason the order of the name components couldn't be more > similar to the download directory structure? For example, old pungi > images were named like Fedora-20-i386-DVD.iso, corresponding to > $VERSION/$ARCH (and $IMAGETYPE comes last since both of these, DVD and > netinst, are in the same dir). So, in > https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/21-Alpha-TC5/Workstation/i386/... > , instead of Fedora-Workstation-netinst-i386-21-Alpha-TC5.iso, what > about Fedora-21-Alpha-TC5-Workstation-i386-netinst.iso? This is > basically the same as the old naming in the case of install images > (except for the new $PRODUCT field). the naming was decided by Adam with minimal input from me. doing what you are proposing is quite a bit of extra work. we actually feed in Fedora-Workstation as a single option on the CLI. I really do not see what it gains us. Can you please try to better explain why you feel we should change it now?

On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 11:17:36 -0400 Andre Robatino <robatino(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote: > On 09/03/2014 10:13 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:

>> the naming was decided by Adam with minimal input from me. doing >> what you are proposing is quite a bit of extra work. we actually >> feed in Fedora-Workstation as a single option on the CLI. I really >> do not see what it gains us. Can you please try to better explain >> why you feel we should change it now? > 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.

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.

On Wed, 2014-09-03 at 09:13 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 09:40:12 -0400 > Andre Robatino <robatino(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote: > >> This is a reply to >> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/rel-eng/2014-July/018178.html >> . (Sorry, but there appears to be no Gmane interface to this mailing >> list, and I just subscribed to the list, so I don't have the original >> email.) >> >>> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_fedora_image_naming_po... >> >> Is there a reason the order of the name components couldn't be more >> similar to the download directory structure? For example, old pungi >> images were named like Fedora-20-i386-DVD.iso, corresponding to >> $VERSION/$ARCH (and $IMAGETYPE comes last since both of these, DVD and >> netinst, are in the same dir). So, in >> https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/21-Alpha-TC5/Workstation/i386/... >> , instead of Fedora-Workstation-netinst-i386-21-Alpha-TC5.iso, what >> about Fedora-21-Alpha-TC5-Workstation-i386-netinst.iso? This is >> basically the same as the old naming in the case of install images >> (except for the new $PRODUCT field). > > the naming was decided by Adam with minimal input from me. doing what > you are proposing is quite a bit of extra work. we actually feed in > Fedora-Workstation as a single option on the CLI. I really do not see > what it gains us. Can you please try to better explain why you feel we > should change it now? Well, I didn't decide it, I *proposed* it. The page does have "draft" in the title, and thread has "proposal" in the subject :) I was kinda expecting discussion, refinement, pushback etc etc, but in fact no-one seemed to mind and you just went ahead and used it, so hey. I think my thinking was that, well, 'Fedora Workstation' is supposed to be the product, so it seems odd to split up the two elements of the product name in the image name. But you're correct that it does not reflect the hierarchy used on the mirrors, where 'release' beats 'product'. If you're trying to parse from the image name to the TC/RC directory tree or vice versa this is obviously sub-optimal, yes. I don't know what the actual release tree is supposed to look like yet, entirely. I'm not sure I agree this causes 'user confusion' - could you elaborate on that? Are you thinking of a user manually browsing the tree, looking for something to download? We can probably optimize that case indeed, but I'd want to take a look at the whole thing, not just 'change the image name to reflect the directory structure' (since the directory structure is extremely arbitrary at this point) but consider both together, and I'd also want to look at *all* images. The point of the new naming scheme is to account for the fact we now have, like, 20+ images. We have lives, netinsts, "DVD"s and various types of disk image for three products and several 'not-products', it's something of a mess, so you might want to take the whole list of images from one of the TCs, run it through your proposed naming scheme, and see if they all make sense - that's what I did.

I agree that you want significance to run left to right in names, but I'm not sure it's correct that version/release is more significant than Product (as in your initial proposal). I don't immediately see any issues with your second, but I'd have to look at the full list of images again to make sure. I'm not sure it's necessarily worth more churn for Dennis if we don't have a more compelling reason than 'potential user confusion'(?), but on the other hand, this is probably the time to 'get it right' while it's still new - the longer we use any one scheme the more inertia it has behind it.

On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 10:33 -0400, Andre Robatino wrote: > I agree that it's not clear whether version/release is more or less > significant than Product, that's a judgment call. It would be nice if > the directory structure and the file names could use exactly the same > order, but it doesn't have to be exact, so if there are practical issues > regarding what kind of input the image-generating tools want, so be it. So FWIW I went and looked at it again and I'm still kinda happy with my ordering, but it it very subjective. I guess my conception of it is that the fields run along a spectrum from defining "a thing" to defining "an instance of that thing". To me, the distribution itself (Fedora) is the high-level thing you want, then PRODUCT/LOADOUT and IMAGETYPE are the sort of...sub-Thing. Fedora Workstation Live is a 'thing', to me. IMAGETYPE does kind of shade over into the other end of the spectrum, which is elements that are attributes defining a particular instance of the "thing". VERSION is, well, the exact version of the "thing" you want. ARCH is the arch. To me, x86_64 version 21 of "Fedora Workstation Live" is a different iteration of the same "thing" as i686 version 22 of "Fedora Workstation Live". But this may well all make sense only in my head, I don't know :) Did anyone have any other comments on the scheme? I think maybe we should leave wiggle room till Alpha RC phase, then declare it 'production' and consider future changes with appropriate gravitas :)