On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:58 AM, Loic Dachary <loic@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On 27/02/2015 00:59, Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub wrote:
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Loic Dachary" <loic@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> To: "Sage Weil" <sweil@xxxxxxxxxx>, ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 3:38:31 PM
>>> Subject: Re: ceph versions
>>>
>>> Hi Sage,
>>>
>>> I prefer Option D because it's self explanatory. We could also drop the
>>> names. I became attached to them but they are confusing to the new users who
>>> is required to remember that firefly is 0.80, giant is 0.87 etc.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> On 27/02/2015 00:12, Sage Weil wrote:
>>>> -- Option D -- "labeled"
>>>>
>>>> X.Y-{dev,rc,release}Z
>>>>
>>>> - Increment Y on each major named release
>>>> - Increment X if it's a major major named release (bigger change
>>>> than usual)
>>>> - Use dev, rc, or release prefix to clearly label what type of release
>>>> this is
>>>> - Increment Z for stable updates
>>>>
>>>> 1.0-dev1 first infernalis dev release
>>>> 1.0-dev2 another dev release
>>>> ...
>>>> 1.0-rc1 first rc
>>>> 1.0-rc2 next rc
>>>> 1.0-release1 final release
>>>> 1.0-release2 stable update
>>>> 1.0-release3 stable update
>>>> 1.1-dev1 first cut for j-release
>>>> 1.1-dev2 ...
>>>> ...
>>>> 1.1-rc1
>>>> 1.1-release1 stable
>>>> 1.1-release2 stable
>>>> 1.1-release3 stable
>>>>
>>>> Q: How do I tell what kind of release this is?
>>>> A: Look at the string embedded in the version
>>>>
>>>> Q: Will these funny strings confuse things that sort by version?
>>>> A: I don't think so.
>>>
>>> dev < rc < release : good pick ;-)
>>>
>>
>> This is the one I lean towards, with one slight variation. I'd drop the 'release' tag and have X.Y[.Z] format for the formal releases, e.g.,
>> 2.0-dev1 first infernalis dev release
>> 2.0-dev2
>> ..
>> 2.0-rc1
>> 2.0-rc2
>> ...
>> 2.0 # infarnalis
>> 2.0.1 # first dot release
>> ...
>> 2.1-dev1 # first j dev release
>> ...
>> 2.1 # j release
>>
>> Then after a few release move to 3.0 to avoid the dreadful big numbers.
>>
>> Sage did mention that this might have some issues in certain environments to sort correctly. Possibly replacing the dash with a tilde solves this?
>>
>
> The lexicographic order of ~ is modified in debian and that may create confusion:
>
> http://man.he.net/man5/deb-version
>
> lexical comparison is a comparison of ASCII values modified so that all
> the letters sort earlier than all the non-letters and so that a tilde
> sorts before anything, even the end of a part. For example, the fol-
> lowing parts are in sorted order: '~~', '~~a', '~', the empty part,
> 'a'.
>
> The - is lower than the . so it should be good provided the major releases are X.Y.0 instead of X.Y, i.e.:
>
> 2.0-rc3
> 2.0.0 # infarnalis
> 2.0.1 # first dot release
>
> etc.
>
> Dropping the "release" word for stable releases is a good idea.
FWIW I'd lean towards "labeled" scheme without the "release" label as
well. I don't have a strong opinion on X.Y vs X.Y.0 for formal
releases, but I would have probably gone with X.Y - just my 2c.
Thanks,
Ilya
--
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
