----- Original Message -----
> From: "Loic Dachary" <loic@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Ilya Dryomov" <idryomov@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub" <yehuda@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Sage Weil" <sweil@xxxxxxxxxx>, ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 5:55:32 AM
> Subject: Re: ceph versions
>
>
>
> 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.
>
btw, what if it'd be like this:
2.0dev1
2.0dev2
...
2.0rc1
...
2.0
2.0.1
Will we have that issue when the label is attached directly without a dot, or maybe the package managers handle it differently? I seem to vaguely remember something like that but I might be completely wrong.
Yehuda
--
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
