On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 4:25 AM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY <kkeithle@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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_ it isversion/
> 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¢
+1 to the overall release cadence change proposal and what Kaleb mentions here.
Tying op-versions to release numbers seems like an easier approach than others & one to which we are accustomed to. What are the benefits of breaking this model?
Thanks,
Vijay
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
