From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Elsayed Subject: Re: ceph versions Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 14:47:24 -0800 Message-ID: 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: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:45697 "EHLO plane.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755454AbbB0Wrd (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Feb 2015 17:47:33 -0500 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YRTgw-0001qH-4K for ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 23:47:30 +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 23:47:30 +0100 Received: from eternaleye by 50.245.141.77 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 23:47:30 +0100 Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org Loic Dachary wrote: > > > 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 >>>>> 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? >>>> >>> >>> 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 empty >>> part, 'a'. >>> >>> The - is lower than the . so it should be good provided the major >>> releases 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. Stringwise, yes - though in Exherbo and Gentoo, X.Y-rc3 sorts before X.Y because not all distros treat versions as strings.