Re: [DISCUSS] AGE Versioning in Master
Folks, I agree with what Josh has just said in the email. I would also like to add further comments. There is a need to rethink how versioning is being done as I don't see any use of last digit in the versioning therefore, I recommend removing this unless it has potential known use in the future. Another point of view two digits is normally used when there is a need to distinguish between major releases and minor releases which doesn't seems the case here. Therefore, I suggest making versioning with only two digits i.e. 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2 I give following definition - first digit shall be used for major release - second digit should be release for bug fixes There is still a need to have a definition for major release that I leave up to other folks to give their suggestions about a major release and a bugfix release. If you must use three digits, I recommend using it in the following way - 11.1.0 => PostgreSQL version 11 - 12.1.0 => PostgreSQL Version 12 - 13.1.0 => PostgreSQL version 13 Here first digit represents PostgreSQL version Ciao, Shoaib On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 10:35 PM Alex Kwak wrote: > Yes, It needs. > I agree. > > Alex > > On 2022/03/02 20:58:28 Josh Innis wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > For every release of AGE we update the version number. The team is > > currently researching how to support upgrading between versions and an > > issue about the order of updating the version in Master came to our > > attention. > > > > Currently, before we create a release we update the version number. > However > > we do this at the end of a development of a release cycle rather than at > > the beginning. This will become an issue with maintaining our upgrade > > scripts going forward. > > > > So we propose this change to our release cycle: update the version of AGE > > in Master at the beginning of a development cycle rather than at the end. > > This will allow us to construct the upgrade scripts through the whole > > process of the release rather than having to do it all at once in the > end. > > > > For the current release, we just make the change now and follow this > > process going forward. > > > > Thoughts?/Concerns?/Questions? > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] AGE Versioning in Master
Yes, It needs. I agree. Alex On 2022/03/02 20:58:28 Josh Innis wrote: > Hi All, > > For every release of AGE we update the version number. The team is > currently researching how to support upgrading between versions and an > issue about the order of updating the version in Master came to our > attention. > > Currently, before we create a release we update the version number. However > we do this at the end of a development of a release cycle rather than at > the beginning. This will become an issue with maintaining our upgrade > scripts going forward. > > So we propose this change to our release cycle: update the version of AGE > in Master at the beginning of a development cycle rather than at the end. > This will allow us to construct the upgrade scripts through the whole > process of the release rather than having to do it all at once in the end. > > For the current release, we just make the change now and follow this > process going forward. > > Thoughts?/Concerns?/Questions? >
Re: [DISCUSS] AGE Versioning in Master
I agree as well. John On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 7:07 PM VUONG QUOC Viet wrote: > Hi Josh, > I agree with your idea. > Best regards, > Viet. > > On Thu, Mar 3, 2022, 3:58 AM Josh Innis wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > For every release of AGE we update the version number. The team is > > currently researching how to support upgrading between versions and an > > issue about the order of updating the version in Master came to our > > attention. > > > > Currently, before we create a release we update the version number. > However > > we do this at the end of a development of a release cycle rather than at > > the beginning. This will become an issue with maintaining our upgrade > > scripts going forward. > > > > So we propose this change to our release cycle: update the version of AGE > > in Master at the beginning of a development cycle rather than at the end. > > This will allow us to construct the upgrade scripts through the whole > > process of the release rather than having to do it all at once in the > end. > > > > For the current release, we just make the change now and follow this > > process going forward. > > > > Thoughts?/Concerns?/Questions? > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] AGE Versioning in Master
Hi Josh, I agree with your idea. Best regards, Viet. On Thu, Mar 3, 2022, 3:58 AM Josh Innis wrote: > Hi All, > > For every release of AGE we update the version number. The team is > currently researching how to support upgrading between versions and an > issue about the order of updating the version in Master came to our > attention. > > Currently, before we create a release we update the version number. However > we do this at the end of a development of a release cycle rather than at > the beginning. This will become an issue with maintaining our upgrade > scripts going forward. > > So we propose this change to our release cycle: update the version of AGE > in Master at the beginning of a development cycle rather than at the end. > This will allow us to construct the upgrade scripts through the whole > process of the release rather than having to do it all at once in the end. > > For the current release, we just make the change now and follow this > process going forward. > > Thoughts?/Concerns?/Questions? >
[DISCUSS] AGE Versioning in Master
Hi All, For every release of AGE we update the version number. The team is currently researching how to support upgrading between versions and an issue about the order of updating the version in Master came to our attention. Currently, before we create a release we update the version number. However we do this at the end of a development of a release cycle rather than at the beginning. This will become an issue with maintaining our upgrade scripts going forward. So we propose this change to our release cycle: update the version of AGE in Master at the beginning of a development cycle rather than at the end. This will allow us to construct the upgrade scripts through the whole process of the release rather than having to do it all at once in the end. For the current release, we just make the change now and follow this process going forward. Thoughts?/Concerns?/Questions?
