On 04/26/2012 06:09 PM, Tommi Virtanen wrote:
Now, here are my actual questions: 1. What should the "relative" names of the branches be? "stable" vs "latest" etc. I especially don't like "integration", but I do see a time where it is not ready for "stable" but still needs to branch off of "latest". 2. Do we want to use cutesy codenames? Alphabetical? Based on what theme? 3. Do we want to use calendar based names? "I'm using Ceph branch 2012.04"? (Or spell it 2012-04 to avoid confusing with 0.41 style versions?) 3. What do we do with version numbers? With a 2-3 week iteration, we'll end up with something like 0.41.x, 0.56.x for Folsom integration (less than a year from now), and 0.57, 0.58 etc for "latest". 4. What will be worthy of 1.0? Is it when the distributed file system is solid? Getting out of 0.x would help with separating the different branches based on major numbers, but I fear that window has closed already. Your input is welcome.
FWIW, I think the current Linux kernel versioning scheme should be considered. In particular I like that for the most part new features don't get back-ported to stable series kernels; if you want new features you need to upgrade. If you haven't seen it, https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/4/11/779 has a good discussion of issues the kernel versioning attempts to address. I think names are cute but essentially useless - what I want from an identification scheme is to tell at a glance that "a" is likely to be better than "b". Numeric "a" and "b" where a > b does that for me; names don't. Also FWIW, don't get hung up on 1.0. Instead, borrow again from kernel experience - what is needed is careful selection of the versions that get long-term support. If you haven't seen it, https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/8/15/5 has a good discussion of longterm kernel support. -- Jim -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
