On 27/02/2015 17:29, Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub wrote:
>
>
> ----- 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.
That still leaves us with 2.0 sorted before 2.0dev1
> 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
>
--
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
