From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Loic Dachary Subject: Re: ceph versions Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 14:55:32 +0100 Message-ID: <54F07754.8060602@dachary.org> References: <54EFAE77.3020101@dachary.org> <567942662.11970131.1424995195896.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <54EFC131.8080402@dachary.org> <54F07108.8040500@dachary.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="LnJAUeS8L2W64oaUPPfG0Lr147JW2a3MJ" Return-path: Received: from mail2.dachary.org ([91.121.57.175]:50056 "EHLO smtp.dmail.dachary.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751270AbbB0Nzf (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Feb 2015 08:55:35 -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) --LnJAUeS8L2W64oaUPPfG0Lr147JW2a3MJ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 wrot= e: >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 dro= p 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 r= elease >>>>>>> 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 numb= ers. >>>>> >>>>> Sage did mention that this might have some issues in certain enviro= nments to sort correctly. Possibly replacing the dash with a tilde solves= this? >>>>> >>>> >>>> The lexicographic order of ~ is modified in debian and that may crea= te confusion: >>>> >>>> http://man.he.net/man5/deb-version >>>> >>>> lexical comparison is a comparison of ASCII values modified s= o 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 em= pty part, >>>> 'a'. >>>> >>>> The - is lower than the . so it should be good provided the major re= leases 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.= >=20 > 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 packag= es in debian deal with that. Cheers >=20 > Thanks, >=20 > Ilya > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" i= n > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >=20 --=20 Lo=C3=AFc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre --LnJAUeS8L2W64oaUPPfG0Lr147JW2a3MJ 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) iEYEARECAAYFAlTwd1QACgkQ8dLMyEl6F22KnACglvGecDY6bxoauXP1UAh9YjFM XQkAn1xqf5Lmjf29PdfP5Hs2Q0Zo51WF =zOFn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --LnJAUeS8L2W64oaUPPfG0Lr147JW2a3MJ--