On 27/02/2015 13:59, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
> 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.
The problem with X.Y is that it sorts before X.Y-rc3 instead of after.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ilya
>
--
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
