Resurrecting this thread since we need to make a decision soon. The
opinions broke down like so:
A - me
B - john
C - alex
D - loic (and drop release names), yehuda, ilya
openstack - dmsimard
So, most people seem to like D (below):
On Thu, 26 Feb 2015, 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
This initialy made me a bit sad because it wasn't my favorite. My
aesthetic issues aside, though, I think more explicit dev vs release
distinction is important and useful. I think the main issue is the
strings in the version which will cause pain for some distros.
Would this make sense instead?
x.0.z - development releases
x.1.z - release candidate(s)
x.2.z - release and bugfix updates
John preferred B (even/odd) because it encodes the important info in the
x.y portion of the version; I think the above does that too, and a bit
more succinctly.
What do you think?
If that works for people, the follow-up question is what initial X value
we should choose. We could go with 1 (and live with the baggage
associated with what "1.0" is supposed to mean), or with 9 (J is the 9th
letter). And if we do that, should we make the hammer release 8.2.0 or
stick with 0.94?
sage
--
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
