The first infernalis dev release will be v9.0.0

The first infernalis dev release will be v9.0.0

[Sage Weil]

The first Ceph release back in Jan of 2008 was 0.1.  That made sense at 
the time.  We haven't revised the versioning scheme since then, however, 
and are now at 0.94.1 (first Hammer point release).  To avoid reaching 
0.99 (and 0.100 or 1.00?) we have a new strategy.  This was discussed a 
bit on ceph-devel and in #ceph-devel and there doesn't appear to be any 
scheme that everyone likes.

So, we're going to go with something that only a few people dislike:

 x.0.z - development releases (for early testers and the brave at heart)
 x.1.z - release candidates (for test clusters, brave users)
 x.2.z - stable/bugfix releases (for users)

x will start at 9 for Infernalis ("I" is the 9th letter), making our first 
development release of the 9th release cycle 9.0.0.  Subsequent 
development releases will be 9.0.1, 9.0.2, etc.

In a couple months we'll have a 9.1.0 (and maybe 9.1.1) release candidate.

A few weeks after that we'll have the Infernalis release 9.2.0, followed 
by stable bug fix updates 9.2.1, 9.2.2, etc., and then begin work on the 
Jewel (10.y.z) release.

We'll see how this works out.  We can adjust this in the future to any 
other 9.y.z scheme (e.g., 9.1, 9.2 etc dev releases and 9.8.z stable 
releases); the main commitment here is to the 9 part, indicating 
Infernalis is the 9th major release cycle.

Onward!
sage

Re: The first infernalis dev release will be v9.0.0

[Loic Dachary]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1743 bytes --]

+1 ;-)

On 04/05/2015 18:09, Sage Weil wrote:
> The first Ceph release back in Jan of 2008 was 0.1.  That made sense at 
> the time.  We haven't revised the versioning scheme since then, however, 
> and are now at 0.94.1 (first Hammer point release).  To avoid reaching 
> 0.99 (and 0.100 or 1.00?) we have a new strategy.  This was discussed a 
> bit on ceph-devel and in #ceph-devel and there doesn't appear to be any 
> scheme that everyone likes.
> 
> So, we're going to go with something that only a few people dislike:
> 
>  x.0.z - development releases (for early testers and the brave at heart)
>  x.1.z - release candidates (for test clusters, brave users)
>  x.2.z - stable/bugfix releases (for users)
> 
> x will start at 9 for Infernalis ("I" is the 9th letter), making our first 
> development release of the 9th release cycle 9.0.0.  Subsequent 
> development releases will be 9.0.1, 9.0.2, etc.
> 
> In a couple months we'll have a 9.1.0 (and maybe 9.1.1) release candidate.
> 
> A few weeks after that we'll have the Infernalis release 9.2.0, followed 
> by stable bug fix updates 9.2.1, 9.2.2, etc., and then begin work on the 
> Jewel (10.y.z) release.
> 
> We'll see how this works out.  We can adjust this in the future to any 
> other 9.y.z scheme (e.g., 9.1, 9.2 etc dev releases and 9.8.z stable 
> releases); the main commitment here is to the 9 part, indicating 
> Infernalis is the 9th major release cycle.
> 
> Onward!
> sage
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 

-- 
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: The first infernalis dev release will be v9.0.0

[Ken Dreyer]

This makes a lot of sense. Thanks!

- Ken

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Loic Dachary" <loic@dachary.org>
> To: "Sage Weil" <sweil@redhat.com>, ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org, ceph-users@ceph.com
> Sent: Monday, May 4, 2015 11:18:35 AM
> Subject: Re: The first infernalis dev release will be v9.0.0
> 
> +1 ;-)
> 
> On 04/05/2015 18:09, Sage Weil wrote:
> > The first Ceph release back in Jan of 2008 was 0.1.  That made sense at
> > the time.  We haven't revised the versioning scheme since then, however,
> > and are now at 0.94.1 (first Hammer point release).  To avoid reaching
> > 0.99 (and 0.100 or 1.00?) we have a new strategy.  This was discussed a
> > bit on ceph-devel and in #ceph-devel and there doesn't appear to be any
> > scheme that everyone likes.
> > 
> > So, we're going to go with something that only a few people dislike:
> > 
> >  x.0.z - development releases (for early testers and the brave at heart)
> >  x.1.z - release candidates (for test clusters, brave users)
> >  x.2.z - stable/bugfix releases (for users)
> > 
> > x will start at 9 for Infernalis ("I" is the 9th letter), making our first
> > development release of the 9th release cycle 9.0.0.  Subsequent
> > development releases will be 9.0.1, 9.0.2, etc.
> > 
> > In a couple months we'll have a 9.1.0 (and maybe 9.1.1) release candidate.
> > 
> > A few weeks after that we'll have the Infernalis release 9.2.0, followed
> > by stable bug fix updates 9.2.1, 9.2.2, etc., and then begin work on the
> > Jewel (10.y.z) release.
> > 
> > We'll see how this works out.  We can adjust this in the future to any
> > other 9.y.z scheme (e.g., 9.1, 9.2 etc dev releases and 9.8.z stable
> > releases); the main commitment here is to the 9 part, indicating
> > Infernalis is the 9th major release cycle.
> > 
> > Onward!
> > sage
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > 
> 
> --
> Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Re: The first infernalis dev release will be v9.0.0

[Joao Eduardo Luis]

On 05/04/2015 05:09 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> The first Ceph release back in Jan of 2008 was 0.1.  That made sense at 
> the time.  We haven't revised the versioning scheme since then, however, 
> and are now at 0.94.1 (first Hammer point release).  To avoid reaching 
> 0.99 (and 0.100 or 1.00?) we have a new strategy.  This was discussed a 
> bit on ceph-devel and in #ceph-devel and there doesn't appear to be any 
> scheme that everyone likes.
> 
> So, we're going to go with something that only a few people dislike:
> 
>  x.0.z - development releases (for early testers and the brave at heart)
>  x.1.z - release candidates (for test clusters, brave users)
>  x.2.z - stable/bugfix releases (for users)
> 
> x will start at 9 for Infernalis ("I" is the 9th letter), making our first 
> development release of the 9th release cycle 9.0.0.  Subsequent 
> development releases will be 9.0.1, 9.0.2, etc.
> 
> In a couple months we'll have a 9.1.0 (and maybe 9.1.1) release candidate.
> 
> A few weeks after that we'll have the Infernalis release 9.2.0, followed 
> by stable bug fix updates 9.2.1, 9.2.2, etc., and then begin work on the 
> Jewel (10.y.z) release.
> 
> We'll see how this works out.  We can adjust this in the future to any 
> other 9.y.z scheme (e.g., 9.1, 9.2 etc dev releases and 9.8.z stable 
> releases); the main commitment here is to the 9 part, indicating 
> Infernalis is the 9th major release cycle.

Looks sane!

I'm guessing once 9.1.0 is frozen the dev cycles will move on to 10.0.1?

  -Joao

Re: The first infernalis dev release will be v9.0.0

[Sage Weil]

On Tue, 5 May 2015, Joao Eduardo Luis wrote:
> On 05/04/2015 05:09 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> > The first Ceph release back in Jan of 2008 was 0.1.  That made sense at 
> > the time.  We haven't revised the versioning scheme since then, however, 
> > and are now at 0.94.1 (first Hammer point release).  To avoid reaching 
> > 0.99 (and 0.100 or 1.00?) we have a new strategy.  This was discussed a 
> > bit on ceph-devel and in #ceph-devel and there doesn't appear to be any 
> > scheme that everyone likes.
> > 
> > So, we're going to go with something that only a few people dislike:
> > 
> >  x.0.z - development releases (for early testers and the brave at heart)
> >  x.1.z - release candidates (for test clusters, brave users)
> >  x.2.z - stable/bugfix releases (for users)
> > 
> > x will start at 9 for Infernalis ("I" is the 9th letter), making our first 
> > development release of the 9th release cycle 9.0.0.  Subsequent 
> > development releases will be 9.0.1, 9.0.2, etc.
> > 
> > In a couple months we'll have a 9.1.0 (and maybe 9.1.1) release candidate.
> > 
> > A few weeks after that we'll have the Infernalis release 9.2.0, followed 
> > by stable bug fix updates 9.2.1, 9.2.2, etc., and then begin work on the 
> > Jewel (10.y.z) release.
> > 
> > We'll see how this works out.  We can adjust this in the future to any 
> > other 9.y.z scheme (e.g., 9.1, 9.2 etc dev releases and 9.8.z stable 
> > releases); the main commitment here is to the 9 part, indicating 
> > Infernalis is the 9th major release cycle.
> 
> Looks sane!
> 
> I'm guessing once 9.1.0 is frozen the dev cycles will move on to 10.0.1?

Yep!  Or 10.0.0 I guess since we just did 9.0.0.

sage

Re: The first infernalis dev release will be v9.0.0

[Tony Harris]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2208 bytes --]

So with this, will even numbers then be LTS?  Since 9.0.0 is following
0.94.x/Hammer, and every other release is normally LTS, I'm guessing
10.x.x, 12.x.x, etc. will be LTS...

On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Sage Weil <sweil-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 5 May 2015, Joao Eduardo Luis wrote:
> > On 05/04/2015 05:09 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> > > The first Ceph release back in Jan of 2008 was 0.1.  That made sense at
> > > the time.  We haven't revised the versioning scheme since then,
> however,
> > > and are now at 0.94.1 (first Hammer point release).  To avoid reaching
> > > 0.99 (and 0.100 or 1.00?) we have a new strategy.  This was discussed a
> > > bit on ceph-devel and in #ceph-devel and there doesn't appear to be any
> > > scheme that everyone likes.
> > >
> > > So, we're going to go with something that only a few people dislike:
> > >
> > >  x.0.z - development releases (for early testers and the brave at
> heart)
> > >  x.1.z - release candidates (for test clusters, brave users)
> > >  x.2.z - stable/bugfix releases (for users)
> > >
> > > x will start at 9 for Infernalis ("I" is the 9th letter), making our
> first
> > > development release of the 9th release cycle 9.0.0.  Subsequent
> > > development releases will be 9.0.1, 9.0.2, etc.
> > >
> > > In a couple months we'll have a 9.1.0 (and maybe 9.1.1) release
> candidate.
> > >
> > > A few weeks after that we'll have the Infernalis release 9.2.0,
> followed
> > > by stable bug fix updates 9.2.1, 9.2.2, etc., and then begin work on
> the
> > > Jewel (10.y.z) release.
> > >
> > > We'll see how this works out.  We can adjust this in the future to any
> > > other 9.y.z scheme (e.g., 9.1, 9.2 etc dev releases and 9.8.z stable
> > > releases); the main commitment here is to the 9 part, indicating
> > > Infernalis is the 9th major release cycle.
> >
> > Looks sane!
> >
> > I'm guessing once 9.1.0 is frozen the dev cycles will move on to 10.0.1?
>
> Yep!  Or 10.0.0 I guess since we just did 9.0.0.
>
> sage
> _______________________________________________
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 3179 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 178 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Re: [ceph-users] The first infernalis dev release will be v9.0.0

[Sage Weil]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 299 bytes --]

On Tue, 5 May 2015, Tony Harris wrote:
> So with this, will even numbers then be LTS?  Since 9.0.0 is following
> 0.94.x/Hammer, and every other release is normally LTS, I'm guessing 10.x.x,
> 12.x.x, etc. will be LTS...

It looks that way now, although I can't promise the pattern will hold!

sage

Re: The first infernalis dev release will be v9.0.0

[Steffen W Sørensen]

> On 05/05/2015, at 18.52, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 5 May 2015, Tony Harris wrote:
>> So with this, will even numbers then be LTS?  Since 9.0.0 is following
>> 0.94.x/Hammer, and every other release is normally LTS, I'm guessing 10.x.x,
>> 12.x.x, etc. will be LTS...
> 
> It looks that way now, although I can't promise the pattern will hold!
I read it like major version is the release ie. Infernails, Jewel etc. following the letter position in the alfabet, I = 9th. letter, so we see all numbers 10,11,12,13…25
minor numbers = 2 will denote LTS eg. <major release>.2.<patch level>

/Steffen
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Re: [ceph-users] The first infernalis dev release will be v9.0.0

[Joao Eduardo Luis]

On 05/05/2015 08:54 PM, Steffen W Sørensen wrote:
> 
>> On 05/05/2015, at 18.52, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 5 May 2015, Tony Harris wrote:
>>> So with this, will even numbers then be LTS?  Since 9.0.0 is following
>>> 0.94.x/Hammer, and every other release is normally LTS, I'm guessing 10.x.x,
>>> 12.x.x, etc. will be LTS...
>>
>> It looks that way now, although I can't promise the pattern will hold!
> I read it like major version is the release ie. Infernails, Jewel etc. following the letter position in the alfabet, I = 9th. letter, so we see all numbers 10,11,12,13…25
> minor numbers = 2 will denote LTS eg. <major release>.2.<patch level>

minor number '2' will denote 'stable', as oposed to 'dev' (minor = 0) or
'release candidate' (minor = 1).  LTS has been every other major
version; so given Hammer is an LTS and Infernallis is not, then Jewel
would likely be a long term stable.

The point Tony was making is that this cadence, should it be kept as is,
would match perfectly with even major versions (jewel 10.x, L-release
12.x, ...).

  -Joao

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html