From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Jim Schutt" Subject: Re: Release/branch naming; input requested Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 09:19:46 -0600 Message-ID: <4F9AB912.904@sandia.gov> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from sentry-two.sandia.gov ([132.175.109.14]:34232 "EHLO sentry-two.sandia.gov" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760494Ab2D0PUR (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:20:17 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Tommi Virtanen Cc: ceph-devel On 04/26/2012 06:09 PM, Tommi Virtanen wrote: > Now, here are my actual questions: > > 1. What should the "relative" names of the branches be? "stable" vs > "latest" etc. I especially don't like "integration", but I do see a > time where it is not ready for "stable" but still needs to branch off > of "latest". > > 2. Do we want to use cutesy codenames? Alphabetical? Based on what theme? > > 3. Do we want to use calendar based names? "I'm using Ceph branch > 2012.04"? (Or spell it 2012-04 to avoid confusing with 0.41 style > versions?) > > 3. What do we do with version numbers? With a 2-3 week iteration, > we'll end up with something like 0.41.x, 0.56.x for Folsom integration > (less than a year from now), and 0.57, 0.58 etc for "latest". > > 4. What will be worthy of 1.0? Is it when the distributed file system > is solid? Getting out of 0.x would help with separating the different > branches based on major numbers, but I fear that window has closed > already. > > > Your input is welcome. FWIW, I think the current Linux kernel versioning scheme should be considered. In particular I like that for the most part new features don't get back-ported to stable series kernels; if you want new features you need to upgrade. If you haven't seen it, https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/4/11/779 has a good discussion of issues the kernel versioning attempts to address. I think names are cute but essentially useless - what I want from an identification scheme is to tell at a glance that "a" is likely to be better than "b". Numeric "a" and "b" where a > b does that for me; names don't. Also FWIW, don't get hung up on 1.0. Instead, borrow again from kernel experience - what is needed is careful selection of the versions that get long-term support. If you haven't seen it, https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/8/15/5 has a good discussion of longterm kernel support. -- Jim