On 27/02/2015 14:49, Ilya Dryomov wrote: > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Loic Dachary <l...@dachary.org> wrote: >> >> >> On 27/02/2015 13:59, Ilya Dryomov wrote: >>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:58 AM, Loic Dachary <l...@dachary.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 27/02/2015 00:59, Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>> From: "Loic Dachary" <l...@dachary.org> >>>>>> To: "Sage Weil" <sw...@redhat.com>, 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. > > 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 packages in debian deal with that. Cheers > > Thanks, > > Ilya > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature