From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub Subject: Re: ceph versions Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 11:29:48 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <185654567.12374840.1425054588585.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> References: <54EFAE77.3020101@dachary.org> <567942662.11970131.1424995195896.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <54EFC131.8080402@dachary.org> <54F07108.8040500@dachary.org> <54F07754.8060602@dachary.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx5-phx2.redhat.com ([209.132.183.37]:43328 "EHLO mx5-phx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754038AbbB0Qaz (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Feb 2015 11:30:55 -0500 In-Reply-To: <54F07754.8060602@dachary.org> Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Loic Dachary Cc: Ilya Dryomov , Sage Weil , ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Loic Dachary" > To: "Ilya Dryomov" > Cc: "Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub" , "Sage Weil" , ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org > Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 5:55:32 AM > Subject: Re: ceph versions > > > > On 27/02/2015 14:49, Ilya Dryomov wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Loic Dachary wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 27/02/2015 13:59, Ilya Dryomov wrote: > >>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:58 AM, Loic Dachary wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 27/02/2015 00:59, Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>>>> From: "Loic Dachary" > >>>>>> To: "Sage Weil" , ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org > >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 3:38:31 PM > >>>>>> Subject: Re: ceph versions > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Sage, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I prefer Option D because it's self explanatory. We could also drop > >>>>>> the > >>>>>> names. I became attached to them but they are confusing to the new > >>>>>> users who > >>>>>> is required to remember that firefly is 0.80, giant is 0.87 etc. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Cheers > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 27/02/2015 00:12, Sage Weil wrote: > >>>>>>> -- Option D -- "labeled" > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> X.Y-{dev,rc,release}Z > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> - Increment Y on each major named release > >>>>>>> - Increment X if it's a major major named release (bigger change > >>>>>>> than usual) > >>>>>>> - Use dev, rc, or release prefix to clearly label what type of > >>>>>>> release > >>>>>>> this is > >>>>>>> - Increment Z for stable updates > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 1.0-dev1 first infernalis dev release > >>>>>>> 1.0-dev2 another dev release > >>>>>>> ... > >>>>>>> 1.0-rc1 first rc > >>>>>>> 1.0-rc2 next rc > >>>>>>> 1.0-release1 final release > >>>>>>> 1.0-release2 stable update > >>>>>>> 1.0-release3 stable update > >>>>>>> 1.1-dev1 first cut for j-release > >>>>>>> 1.1-dev2 ... > >>>>>>> ... > >>>>>>> 1.1-rc1 > >>>>>>> 1.1-release1 stable > >>>>>>> 1.1-release2 stable > >>>>>>> 1.1-release3 stable > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Q: How do I tell what kind of release this is? > >>>>>>> A: Look at the string embedded in the version > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Q: Will these funny strings confuse things that sort by version? > >>>>>>> A: I don't think so. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> dev < rc < release : good pick ;-) > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> This is the one I lean towards, with one slight variation. I'd drop the > >>>>> 'release' tag and have X.Y[.Z] format for the formal releases, e.g., > >>>>> 2.0-dev1 first infernalis dev release > >>>>> 2.0-dev2 > >>>>> .. > >>>>> 2.0-rc1 > >>>>> 2.0-rc2 > >>>>> ... > >>>>> 2.0 # infarnalis > >>>>> 2.0.1 # first dot release > >>>>> ... > >>>>> 2.1-dev1 # first j dev release > >>>>> ... > >>>>> 2.1 # j release > >>>>> > >>>>> Then after a few release move to 3.0 to avoid the dreadful big numbers. > >>>>> > >>>>> Sage did mention that this might have some issues in certain > >>>>> environments to sort correctly. Possibly replacing the dash with a > >>>>> tilde solves this? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> The lexicographic order of ~ is modified in debian and that may create > >>>> confusion: > >>>> > >>>> http://man.he.net/man5/deb-version > >>>> > >>>> lexical comparison is a comparison of ASCII values modified so > >>>> that all > >>>> the letters sort earlier than all the non-letters and so that a > >>>> tilde > >>>> sorts before anything, even the end of a part. For example, > >>>> the fol- > >>>> lowing parts are in sorted order: '~~', '~~a', '~', the empty > >>>> part, > >>>> 'a'. > >>>> > >>>> The - is lower than the . so it should be good provided the major > >>>> releases are X.Y.0 instead of X.Y, i.e.: > >>>> > >>>> 2.0-rc3 > >>>> 2.0.0 # infarnalis > >>>> 2.0.1 # first dot release > >>>> > >>>> etc. > >>>> > >>>> Dropping the "release" word for stable releases is a good idea. > >>> > >>> FWIW I'd lean towards "labeled" scheme without the "release" label as > >>> well. I don't have a strong opinion on X.Y vs X.Y.0 for formal > >>> releases, but I would have probably gone with X.Y - just my 2c. > >> > >> The problem with X.Y is that it sorts before X.Y-rc3 instead of after. > > > > Yeah, I guess I just got used to it in linux.git. But it also makes > > formal releases stand out and is easier to refer to. Sorting tags is > > not something you do *that* often. > > Assuming a script creates the version of the debian package based on the tag, > I guess it matters in that context. Not sure how linux kernel packages in > debian deal with that. > btw, what if it'd be like this: 2.0dev1 2.0dev2 ... 2.0rc1 ... 2.0 2.0.1 Will we have that issue when the label is attached directly without a dot, or maybe the package managers handle it differently? I seem to vaguely remember something like that but I might be completely wrong. Yehuda