Re: [Gluster-Maintainers] Proposal to change the version numbers of Gluster project

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 03/15/2018 12:48 AM, Atin Mukherjee wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 9:45 AM, Vijay Bellur <vbellur@xxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:vbellur@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>     On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 5:40 PM, Shyam Ranganathan
>     <srangana@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:srangana@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> 
>         On 03/14/2018 07:04 PM, Joe Julian wrote:
>         >
>         >
>         > On 03/14/2018 02:25 PM, Vijay Bellur wrote:
>         >>
>         >>
>         >> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 4:25 AM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY
>         >> <kkeithle@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:kkeithle@xxxxxxxxxx>
>         <mailto:kkeithle@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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_version/
>         <https://docs.gluster.org/en/latest/Upgrade-Guide/op_version/>
>         >>   
>          <https://docs.gluster.org/en/latest/Upgrade-Guide/op_version/
>         <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¢
>         >>
>         >>
>         >> +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?
>         >>
>         > There is a bit of confusion among the user base when a release
>         happens
>         > but the op-version doesn't have a commensurate bump. People
>         ask why they
>         > can't set the op-version to match the gluster release version
>         they have
>         > installed. If it was completely disconnected from the release
>         version,
>         > that might be a great enough mental disconnect that the
>         expectation
>         > could go away which would actually cause less confusion.
> 
>         Above is the reason I state it as well (the breaking of the
>         mental model
>         around this), why tie it together when it is not totally
>         related. I also
>         agree that, the notion is present that it is tied together and hence
>         related, but it may serve us better to break it.
> 
> 
> 
>     I see your perspective. Another related reason for not introducing
>     an op-version bump in a new release would be that there are no
>     incompatible features introduced (in the new release). Hence it
>     makes sense to preserve the older op-version.
> 
>     To make everyone's lives simpler, would it be useful to introduce a
>     command that provides the max op-version to release number mapping?
>     The output of the command could look like:
> 
>     op-version X: 3.7.0 to 3.7.11
>     op-version Y: 3.7.12 to x.y.z
> 
> 
> We already have introduced an option called cluster.max-op-version where
> one can run a command like "gluster v get all cluster.max-op-version" to
> determine what highest op-version the cluster can be bumped up to. IMO,
> this helps users not to look at the document for at given x.y.z release
> the op-version has to be bumped up to XXXXX .  Isn't that sufficient for
> this requirement?

jFYI, this is also captured in the op-version upgrade-guide document
(link as posted earlier:
https://docs.gluster.org/en/latest/Upgrade-Guide/op_version/ )

>  
> 
> 
>     and so on.
> 
>     Thanks,
>     Vijay
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     maintainers mailing list
>     maintainers@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:maintainers@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>     http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
>     <http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers>
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel




[Index of Archives]     [Gluster Users]     [Ceph Users]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux