On 05/05/2015 08:54 PM, Steffen W Sørensen wrote: > >> On 05/05/2015, at 18.52, Sage Weil <sweil@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Tue, 5 May 2015, Tony Harris wrote: >>> So with this, will even numbers then be LTS? Since 9.0.0 is following >>> 0.94.x/Hammer, and every other release is normally LTS, I'm guessing 10.x.x, >>> 12.x.x, etc. will be LTS... >> >> It looks that way now, although I can't promise the pattern will hold! > I read it like major version is the release ie. Infernails, Jewel etc. following the letter position in the alfabet, I = 9th. letter, so we see all numbers 10,11,12,13…25 > minor numbers = 2 will denote LTS eg. <major release>.2.<patch level> minor number '2' will denote 'stable', as oposed to 'dev' (minor = 0) or 'release candidate' (minor = 1). LTS has been every other major version; so given Hammer is an LTS and Infernallis is not, then Jewel would likely be a long term stable. The point Tony was making is that this cadence, should it be kept as is, would match perfectly with even major versions (jewel 10.x, L-release 12.x, ...). -Joao _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |