From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Elsayed Subject: Re: ceph versions Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 16:54:32 -0800 Message-ID: References: <54EFAE77.3020101@dachary.org> <567942662.11970131.1424995195896.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:57441 "EHLO plane.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752169AbbB0Ayj (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Feb 2015 19:54:39 -0500 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YR9CP-0000v4-N8 for ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 01:54:37 +0100 Received: from 50.245.141.77 ([50.245.141.77]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 01:54:37 +0100 Received: from eternaleye by 50.245.141.77 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 01:54:37 +0100 Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org 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? Sorting correctly isn't the issue - the issue is that you either need separate "channels" (which from experience has been a real pain with packaging Chrome in Exherbo), or you need to manually rewrite the download URL and such because it's an outright invalid version string from the package manager's perspective.