On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Loic Dachary <loic@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
Yeah, I guess I just got used to it in linux.git. But it also makes
formal releases stand out and is easier to refer to. Sorting tags is
not something you do *that* often.
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
