On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 2:54 AM, Stewart Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 22:44:48 +0200, Henrik Ingo <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Ok, good. This was why I raised the issue in the first place. >> >> So back to the drawing board: Could we just behave like normal people >> and release drizzle-version.tar.gz? Stewart? > > Most packaging systems don't really understand things with a -beta or > -rc suffix to be before a package without it. >
I don't see the problem. Surely 2012.01.30-beta < 2012.01.31-rc < 2012.01.32-stable and what the tag is (or even if there is none) is completely irrelevant. > Also, using bzr revnos and dates gets us daily/snapshot builds that can > be packaged very easily and we don't have to have a human remember to > bump a point release. We should continue to use the current system with bzr revnos for snapshots, there is no need to change that. For the first part of the version number... even if it looks like a date, it's just a tag. It could be anything. Pandora uses the latest tag from bzr. In other words, we can still choose to call our versions 7.1.30.x or 2012.01.30.x, just not both. (x is the revno that is automatic.) For major releases, unfortunately a human just has to bump the number. I see that this is a very hard demand as nobody has thought of doing that for the past 9 months that you have been releasing Fremont releases, but just continuing to release Drizzle7 again and again every year is just very wrong and needs to be fixed asap. So, should we go with 7.1.x or 2012.01.x? As much as you like the date based releases, I'm for the 7.x.x numbering. Currently we make releases like 2011.03.14, 2011.11.13 and 2012.01.30. You think it's convenient to just slap a date on it and not care. But for users this is actually confusing: from those numbers you'd thing that 2011.x are part of the same series and 2012.01 is an upgrade. But this is wrong, in fact 2011.11.13 is elliot and 2011.11.13 and 2012.01.30 are fremont. Hence the current versioning scheme - while deterministic - is nonsensical. If we want to do date based numbers, it should be like Ubuntu, where the version number comes from the release month of the release. Ie current beta and rc releases are already labeled 12.04-beta, not 12.01 (there is no such ubuntu release). To do this, we would need to know in advance which month a development series will be released as stable. Since that will never happen with this gang (and is unrealistic with 12 month cycles, imho), we should just use 7.1.x version numbers. > IIRC there was also something in the mysql protocol that was a whole lot > of fun, and these types of versions are much easier to distinguish > drizzle from mysql. Needs citation. BJ here has provided clear reasons, facts, why current method is bad for Fedora and EPEL as consumers of our releases. If you want to oppose and suggest something else, please do the same. (That being said, if you don't like the number 7 (or 7.1) we can of course have a version number 55 or 2012, it just shouldn't be confused with a date.) henrik -- [email protected] +358-40-8211286 skype: henrik.ingo irc: hingo www.openlife.cc My LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=9522559 _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
