On 27/02/2015 14:49, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
> 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.
Assuming a script creates the version of the debian package based on the tag, I guess it matters in that context. Not sure how linux kernel packages in debian deal with that.
Cheers
>
> 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
>
--
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
