►
From YouTube: Delivery Fast Boot: Day 3 naming things
Description
Delivery team fast boot Day 3: Discussing branch, tag and package naming to make it consistent across projects.
The issues listing the work done are contained in epic https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/release/-/epics/17
A
How
do
we
know
they
didn't
already
trigger
the
same
wrath?
We
decided
to
move
on
tax
and
now
the
problem
is,
how
do
we
actually
name
the
branches
and
name
the
tax
right
and
then
the
version
and
in
the
version?
So
that's
the
main
thing
remaining
to
discuss.
Yes,
all
right.
Here's
a
marker
and
explore
to
a
new,
maybe
maybe.
A
C
C
Happy
with
the
time
being
because
it
has
refs
in
it,
which
is
a
little
redundant
for
a
time,
but
let's
just
leave
it
as
it
is
for
now,
because
I
can't
think
of
anything
better,
and
then
we
have
the
version
of
the
package
that
is
built
so
I
know.
You
know
this
logic
now.
I
know
this
logic
and
it's
really
awful,
but
basically
we
can
make
this.
You
know
we
can
make
the
version
whatever
we
want,
and
we
just
need
to
figure
out
how
to
translate
these
two
into
it.
C
C
The
standards
to
make
it
super
compliant,
then
you
add
like
a
plus
character.
Alright
and
then
I
was
like
okay
I'll
just
do
this
and
then
the
Omni,
Rev
and
I.
Think
when
you
build
a
package
because
can't
go,
do
it
somehow
turned
into
a
tilde,
but
the
fact
it
was
made.
I
don't
know,
but
I'm
not
sure,
actually
what
the
version
of
the
report,
but
either
a
where
it's
only
here
on
that.
C
A
C
C
D
C
A
Maybe
you
can
install
it,
but
you
can
install
it
if
you
force
yes,
so
we
used
to
do
that.
I,
don't
remember
whether
that
got
changed
in
our
environments,
but
this
is
why,
in
the
cookbook
we
have
the
force,
yes
for
our
installations,
to
enforce
that
any
RC
is
not
taken
as
a
downgrade
yeah,
so
bees
might
work
if
we
still.
C
Have
that
yes,
since
we
can,
we
can
make
this
format
whatever
we
want,
and
only
person
is
easy
to
change
yeah.
What
do
we
want
it
to
look
like
I,
think,
major
and
minor?
We
need
1110
I!
Think
it's
not
zero.
We
always
need
that.
Yes,
but
then
I
don't
know
like
we
could
put
a
pipeline
ID.
We
could
put
all
the
deploy.
We
could.
A
C
C
C
C
A
C
C
A
C
A
Here's
the
thing
I'm,
making
a
judgment
call
here
and
saying
get
public
is
being
detached
from
how
we
build
final
releases
for
sub
manage
customers
so
on
the
22nd
you're
not
gonna
have
the
package
that
goes
out
to
self-managed
on
the
22nd
you're
going
to
have
on
it
alone,
you're
going
to
have
1111.
C
B
C
C
D
C
D
A
D
C
D
A
A
D
C
A
It's
just
like
it's
redundant
right
because
it's
another,
but
keeping
it
consistent
in
making
it
very
clear
that
you
know
this
is
not
only
like
a
backwards
release
of
any
sort.
But
if
you
just
keep
it
like
this,
if
you
just
keep
it
like
this,
then
it
is
somewhere
only
and
that
is
gonna
users
gonna,
make
it
even
difficult
to
clean
up
the
stacks.