From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Mick Subject: Re: v0.56 released Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2013 21:49:06 -0800 Message-ID: <50E51BD2.7040603@inktank.com> References: <50E39A4E.1060700@conversis.de> <50E39B68.40800@inktank.com> <50E49814.9000904@conversis.de> <50E50243.6060301@conversis.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-pa0-f43.google.com ([209.85.220.43]:51253 "EHLO mail-pa0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751267Ab3ACFtK (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Jan 2013 00:49:10 -0500 Received: by mail-pa0-f43.google.com with SMTP id fb10so8442036pad.16 for ; Wed, 02 Jan 2013 21:49:09 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <50E50243.6060301@conversis.de> Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Dennis Jacobfeuerborn Cc: Sage Weil , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=E9bastien_Han?= , Mark Nelson , ceph-devel On 01/02/2013 08:00 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote: > On 01/02/2013 09:46 PM, Sage Weil wrote: >> On Wed, 2 Jan 2013, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote: >>> On 01/02/2013 07:11 PM, Sage Weil wrote: >>>> On Wed, 2 Jan 2013, S?bastien Han wrote: >>>>> Debian-testing shows the version 0.56-1, maybe I misunderstood but I >>>>> thought that 0.56-1 bobtail was the new version of the stable branch. >>>>> So I was expecting to see it here >>>>> http://ceph.com/debian/dists/precise/main/binary-amd64/Packages >>>>> >>>>> Correct me if I'm wrong :) >>>> >>>> It will be soon, but we're doing some additional validation before calling >>>> it bobtail. We may also move the URLs around a bit... more on that soon! >>> >>> What happens if you find a problem that needs a small update? Will the >>> bobtail version be bumped to v0.57? >> >> v0.56.1, v0.56.2, etc., will follow in this series and bugs are found and >> backported. > > That sound like an odd and potentially confusing versioning policy because > v0.56 now is apparently a sort-of-stable-but-not-really version. I think if > would be better to either go with something like v0.56rc1 until the release > is actually declared stable or as some other projects do it use something > like v0.55.99 as a pre-release version. That way you know if someone refers > to v0.56 they actually mean the stable release. > Right now if you find a problem and have to release v0.56.1 as bobtail then > every time someone refers to v0.56 you have to ask them if they mean > pre-bobtail v0.56 or post-bobtail v0.56. This kind of ambiguity should be > avoided if possible. > > Regards, > Dennis The versioning in argonaut went 0.48argonaut, 0.48.1argonaut, 0.48.2argonaut, etc. i.e. the codename is the series/branch of patch/fix releases, not just one point in the stream. The truly-unambiguous version comes from any of the tools' -v option, which outputs the coded release name and the SHA1 of the commit.