In the light of recent mis-reports of the Longhorn builds I was wondering what the members think about merging the Codename "Longhorn" releases with the Vista ("Longhorn") alt Server 2008 ("Longhorn Server") releases? The Codename "Longhorn" releases with a server SKU would go to the Server 2008 branch while the rest goes to the Vista branch. I am not sure if there are any builds on the server that has both client and server SKU:s all in one tho.

This would clearly simplify things to keep the releases separated and properly tagged, since at the moment none of the Codename "Longhorn" releases are tagged as anything except for build.

I would need help with separating the releases tho since at the moment I don't have the time to install and check every Longhorn build.

What do you think? Split or keep as is? I could also re-tag the Codename "Longhorn" releases with their proper SKU:s but that would only add to the confusion I think.

Definitely go ahead and merge them. It's confusing going through the list and seeing "Longhorn" only to be unable to find the build I'm looking for and having to scroll around to find it.

i would leave it separated

Longhorn and Vista, Longhorn Server/Server 2008 may share same codename
but is obvious they are NOT the same

heck even if we open build number debate, we know that original Longhorn
had reset, and Vista was actualy born from bld 37xx sp1 fork

Ah, the woes of member opinions .

I thought of that as well, but remember that we try to label the filenames as closely as possible to the final product, i.e XP for Whistler, Vista for Longhorn and so on. Even if the pre-5xxx builds were not like the 5xxx builds the server ones were meant for the Windows 2008 in the end, just as the client were meant for Vista. So it wouldn't be entirely wrong to rename the client betas to Vista and server betas to Windows 2008 anyway. And anyone on this forum with beta interests (hey, what do you do here if you don't like betas?) should know very well that pre-5xxx Longhorns are different and that Microsoft did indeed reboot the project.

And also, Vista/Longhorn/whateveryouwanttocallit is an unique exception since it's the only one that got rebooted in this fashion. So in this case we could make an exception and merge the pre-5xxx into the separate client and server lines. They will still keep the build number etc so people will see it's a pre-5xxx build and they will still know it's the builds before MS decided to can the project and start from scratch.

All in favor?

Leave the Server 2008. Because it's server. Also, I'm uploading normal 4066 to you.

i don't want to step on your shoes
as i apreciate hard work you do for server
but by this politics Neptune should be merged with Whistler
since historicaly the Neptune and Odysey merged into Whistler team

true in that time it was unknown, but if you look at it down now
you could merge alot of thigs that "as closely as possible to final product"

The difference between Longhorn<Vista/Srv2008 and Neptune is that Nepture never made it into a final product. It wasn't even rebooted into one like the pre-5xxx Longhorns were.

My main point is to merge the codenames into the category that matches the final product as much as possible. Longhorn is the only one that got rebooted (new codebase, same goal). As for Neptune or any other confirmed or unconfirmed projects they never got into a final product. They got merged into other products yes, and those products had their own codenames. Those products became final products eventually. As you said, Odyssey and Neptune merged into Whistler. Whister became a final product (XP), so we call all XP betas for "Whistler".

But Longhorn is an exception to all "common" practises because they re-started it. But they kept the same codename. I am not going to discuss any history behind Neptune or any other codename (if you do you will get a warning!), all I want is an honest opinion about making an exception with pre-5xxx Longhorns and merge them into the 5xxx branch, thus making it easier for members that looks specifically for Vista/Longhorn betas, or we leave it as it is.

Merge or leave as-is. Simple as that.

no need to be hostile
i was just making point over your point

in any case, my optinion stands... NO

My point is clear, merge.

On my site I do not differ between Vista or Longhorn, it is all in one.

Longhorn/Vista = In Windows Vista
Longhorn Server/Server 2008 = In Windows Server 2008

I think a merge is more appropriate too. Whilst it was "reset" so to speak, it was still very much the same project, and some parts were reused anyway (most notably the WIM installer)

i say merge , after all , it was , eventually for one goal and one final product

Well, not many has responded so I'll let this thread go for a week or so, but from what I see so far a merging seems in favor. Personally I agree with that too since it will look better and make it easier for everyone.

Let it merge, it's better by this way.

I think that is better to leave them separated. Longhorn builds 3663-4093, Vista builds (3790)5000 - 6000 and Server 2008 builds. Builds 4028 and 4066 are marked as Windows .net server but I don't think that is necessary to make special column for them.

I think this should be merged. You could just label pre-reset, reset, and all that other stuff. Simple as that!