On Tue, 5 May 2015, Joao Eduardo Luis wrote:
> On 05/04/2015 05:09 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> > The first Ceph release back in Jan of 2008 was 0.1. That made sense at
> > the time. We haven't revised the versioning scheme since then, however,
> > and are now at 0.94.1 (first Hammer point release). To avoid reaching
> > 0.99 (and 0.100 or 1.00?) we have a new strategy. This was discussed a
> > bit on ceph-devel and in #ceph-devel and there doesn't appear to be any
> > scheme that everyone likes.
> >
> > So, we're going to go with something that only a few people dislike:
> >
> > x.0.z - development releases (for early testers and the brave at heart)
> > x.1.z - release candidates (for test clusters, brave users)
> > x.2.z - stable/bugfix releases (for users)
> >
> > x will start at 9 for Infernalis ("I" is the 9th letter), making our first
> > development release of the 9th release cycle 9.0.0. Subsequent
> > development releases will be 9.0.1, 9.0.2, etc.
> >
> > In a couple months we'll have a 9.1.0 (and maybe 9.1.1) release candidate.
> >
> > A few weeks after that we'll have the Infernalis release 9.2.0, followed
> > by stable bug fix updates 9.2.1, 9.2.2, etc., and then begin work on the
> > Jewel (10.y.z) release.
> >
> > We'll see how this works out. We can adjust this in the future to any
> > other 9.y.z scheme (e.g., 9.1, 9.2 etc dev releases and 9.8.z stable
> > releases); the main commitment here is to the 9 part, indicating
> > Infernalis is the 9th major release cycle.
>
> Looks sane!
>
> I'm guessing once 9.1.0 is frozen the dev cycles will move on to 10.0.1?
Yep! Or 10.0.0 I guess since we just did 9.0.0.
sage
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
