On 27/02/2015 17:29, Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Loic Dachary" <l...@dachary.org> >> To: "Ilya Dryomov" <idryo...@gmail.com> >> Cc: "Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub" <yeh...@redhat.com>, "Sage Weil" >> <sw...@redhat.com>, ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 5:55:32 AM >> Subject: Re: ceph versions >> >> >> >> 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. >> > > btw, what if it'd be like this: > > 2.0dev1 > 2.0dev2 > ... > 2.0rc1 > ... > 2.0 > 2.0.1 > > Will we have that issue when the label is attached directly without a dot, or > maybe the package managers handle it differently? I seem to vaguely remember > something like that but I might be completely wrong.
That still leaves us with 2.0 sorted before 2.0dev1 > Yehuda > -- > 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