From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Loic Dachary Subject: Re: ceph versions Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 14:28:40 +0100 Message-ID: <54F07108.8040500@dachary.org> References: <54EFAE77.3020101@dachary.org> <567942662.11970131.1424995195896.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <54EFC131.8080402@dachary.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="vSCNjHoXQuU9wkLdjXT7tpdKUMiJ9aj2x" Return-path: Received: from mail2.dachary.org ([91.121.57.175]:50028 "EHLO smtp.dmail.dachary.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752147AbbB0N2m (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Feb 2015 08:28:42 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Ilya Dryomov Cc: Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub , Sage Weil , ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --vSCNjHoXQuU9wkLdjXT7tpdKUMiJ9aj2x Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 u= sers 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 rel= ease >>>>> 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 t= he '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 number= s. >>> >>> Sage did mention that this might have some issues in certain environm= ents to sort correctly. Possibly replacing the dash with a tilde solves t= his? >>> >> >> 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 empt= y part, >> 'a'. >> >> The - is lower than the . so it should be good provided the major rele= ases 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > Thanks, >=20 > Ilya >=20 --=20 Lo=C3=AFc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre --vSCNjHoXQuU9wkLdjXT7tpdKUMiJ9aj2x Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlTwcQgACgkQ8dLMyEl6F22TUQCfbmJ491SVSMGyERqNbwBpLEWT pEwAn2onlSEKG8exfEKsHrubmt30CJcN =m0UE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --vSCNjHoXQuU9wkLdjXT7tpdKUMiJ9aj2x--