On 03/12/2018 02:32 PM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: > On 03/12/2018 10:34 AM, Atin Mukherjee wrote: >> * >> >> After 4.1, we want to move to either continuous numbering (like >> Fedora), or time based (like ubuntu etc) release numbers. Which >> is the model we pick is not yet finalized. Happy to hear opinions. >> >> >> Not sure how the time based release numbers would make more sense than >> the one which Fedora follows. But before I comment further on this I >> need to first get a clarity on how the op-versions will be managed. I'm >> assuming once we're at GlusterFS 4.1, post that the releases will be >> numbered as GlusterFS5, GlusterFS6 ... So from that perspective, are we >> going to stick to our current numbering scheme of op-version where for >> GlusterFS5 the op-version will be 50000? > > Say, yes. > > The question is why tie the op-version to the release number? That > mental model needs to break IMO. > > With current options like, > https://docs.gluster.org/en/latest/Upgrade-Guide/op_version/ it is > easier to determine the op-version of the cluster and what it should be, > and hence this need not be tied to the gluster release version. > > Thoughts? I'm okay with that, but—— Just to play the Devil's Advocate, having an op-version that bears some resemblance to the _version_ number may make it easy/easier to determine what the op-version ought to be. We aren't going to run out of numbers, so there's no reason to be "efficient" here. Let's try to make it easy. (Easy to not make a mistake.) My 2¢ -- Kaleb _______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
