Re: [Vserver] The Future of Stable 1.2x ...
Hello On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 04:24:42PM +0100, Herbert Poetzl wrote: > On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 11:53:41AM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote: > > Hello > > > > This is just my opinion on this matter. > > > > On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 12:41:04AM +0100, Herbert Poetzl wrote: > > > > > > ... depends on you! ;) > > > > > > Greetings Community! > > > > > > don't be alarmed, we are not going to wipe out > > > the stable 1.2x branch now (we rather let it die > > > in piece, eventually) but we have reached a point > > > where the spiffy nomenclature we (I?) came up with > > > reaches it's limits ... > > > > > > ... so we have to decide what should be released > > > after 1.29 ... the obvious options are: > > > > > > * 1.2YY (e.g. 1.210) > > > * 1.2.Y (e.g. 1.2.10) > > > * 1.2Y(e.g. 1.2A) > > > * 1.2-z (e.g. 1.2-final1) > > > > > > funny but (maybe) problematic names would be: > > > > > > * 1.30 > > > * 1.29.1 > > > > I suggest one of the above two. > > It would fit the standard version numbering scheme as the > > development version should be named 2.0 when it is done, > > as (I understand at least, it is more or less a total rewrite). > > I change major versions when it is no longer backwards compatible > > in some major way (new database format without good automatic transition > > or similar). > > > > MAJOR.MINOR.BUGFIX > > > > We have major version 1 > > Minor version 29 > > and bugfix version 1. > > > > If the new version contain new features it should be > > named 1.30 or 1.30.0 > > > > > so please let me know if you find any of those > > > appealing or disgusting and let me know if you > > > have a better idea ... but do it soon, as a (minor) > > > bugfix is on it's way ... > > > > If it is a bugfix release then I suggest 1.29.1 > > okay, thanks, I'll map that according to > http://linux-vserver.org/Release+FAQ and take it > as a vote for 1.2.10 ... Yes that sounds like a good thing. > > > also feel free to let me know what you want us to > > > do with the stable 2.4 branch in the future ... > > > (currently it's in deep freeze, bug fix mode) > > > > If you can keep the patches compatible with 2.4 kernel > > that is great but not truely necessary. It would be nice > > if the util-vserver tool is backwards compatible as > > people do not change kernel on production servers that > > much. At least I dont. On the other hand I do not have > > many produciton servers anymore as I have switched job. :) > > the alpha util-vserver are 'backwards' compatible > as far as possible (and IIRC even better tested with > 2.4 than with 2.6, where the work fine ;) Really nice. > thanks, > Herbert > > PS: let's get the Debian stuff rolling whenever you > have some time ... (i.e. let's meet on the channel) In there now. Regards, // Ola > > Regards, > > > > // Ola > > > > > TIA, > > > Herbert > > > > > > ___ > > > Vserver mailing list > > > Vserver@list.linux-vserver.org > > > http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver > > > > > > > -- > > - Ola Lundqvist --- > > / [EMAIL PROTECTED] Annebergsslingan 37 \ > > | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 654 65 KARLSTAD | > > | +46 (0)54-10 14 30 +46 (0)70-332 1551 | > > | http://www.opal.dhs.org UIN/icq: 4912500 | > > \ gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 / > > --- > > ___ > > Vserver mailing list > > Vserver@list.linux-vserver.org > > http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver > ___ > Vserver mailing list > Vserver@list.linux-vserver.org > http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver > -- - Ola Lundqvist --- / [EMAIL PROTECTED] Annebergsslingan 37 \ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 654 65 KARLSTAD | | +46 (0)54-10 14 30 +46 (0)70-332 1551 | | http://www.opal.dhs.org UIN/icq: 4912500 | \ gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 / --- ___ Vserver mailing list Vserver@list.linux-vserver.org http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver
Re: [Vserver] The Future of Stable 1.2x ...
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 11:53:41AM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote: > Hello > > This is just my opinion on this matter. > > On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 12:41:04AM +0100, Herbert Poetzl wrote: > > > > ... depends on you! ;) > > > > Greetings Community! > > > > don't be alarmed, we are not going to wipe out > > the stable 1.2x branch now (we rather let it die > > in piece, eventually) but we have reached a point > > where the spiffy nomenclature we (I?) came up with > > reaches it's limits ... > > > > ... so we have to decide what should be released > > after 1.29 ... the obvious options are: > > > > * 1.2YY (e.g. 1.210) > > * 1.2.Y (e.g. 1.2.10) > > * 1.2Y(e.g. 1.2A) > > * 1.2-z (e.g. 1.2-final1) > > > > funny but (maybe) problematic names would be: > > > > * 1.30 > > * 1.29.1 > > I suggest one of the above two. > It would fit the standard version numbering scheme as the > development version should be named 2.0 when it is done, > as (I understand at least, it is more or less a total rewrite). > I change major versions when it is no longer backwards compatible > in some major way (new database format without good automatic transition > or similar). > > MAJOR.MINOR.BUGFIX > > We have major version 1 > Minor version 29 > and bugfix version 1. > > If the new version contain new features it should be > named 1.30 or 1.30.0 > > > so please let me know if you find any of those > > appealing or disgusting and let me know if you > > have a better idea ... but do it soon, as a (minor) > > bugfix is on it's way ... > > If it is a bugfix release then I suggest 1.29.1 okay, thanks, I'll map that according to http://linux-vserver.org/Release+FAQ and take it as a vote for 1.2.10 ... > > also feel free to let me know what you want us to > > do with the stable 2.4 branch in the future ... > > (currently it's in deep freeze, bug fix mode) > > If you can keep the patches compatible with 2.4 kernel > that is great but not truely necessary. It would be nice > if the util-vserver tool is backwards compatible as > people do not change kernel on production servers that > much. At least I dont. On the other hand I do not have > many produciton servers anymore as I have switched job. :) the alpha util-vserver are 'backwards' compatible as far as possible (and IIRC even better tested with 2.4 than with 2.6, where the work fine ;) thanks, Herbert PS: let's get the Debian stuff rolling whenever you have some time ... (i.e. let's meet on the channel) > Regards, > > // Ola > > > TIA, > > Herbert > > > > ___ > > Vserver mailing list > > Vserver@list.linux-vserver.org > > http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver > > > > -- > - Ola Lundqvist --- > / [EMAIL PROTECTED] Annebergsslingan 37 \ > | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 654 65 KARLSTAD | > | +46 (0)54-10 14 30 +46 (0)70-332 1551 | > | http://www.opal.dhs.org UIN/icq: 4912500 | > \ gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 / > --- > ___ > Vserver mailing list > Vserver@list.linux-vserver.org > http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver ___ Vserver mailing list Vserver@list.linux-vserver.org http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver
Re: [Vserver] The Future of Stable 1.2x ...
Hello This is just my opinion on this matter. On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 12:41:04AM +0100, Herbert Poetzl wrote: > > ... depends on you! ;) > > Greetings Community! > > don't be alarmed, we are not going to wipe out > the stable 1.2x branch now (we rather let it die > in piece, eventually) but we have reached a point > where the spiffy nomenclature we (I?) came up with > reaches it's limits ... > > ... so we have to decide what should be released > after 1.29 ... the obvious options are: > > * 1.2YY (e.g. 1.210) > * 1.2.Y (e.g. 1.2.10) > * 1.2Y(e.g. 1.2A) > * 1.2-z (e.g. 1.2-final1) > > funny but (maybe) problematic names would be: > > * 1.30 > * 1.29.1 I suggest one of the above two. It would fit the standard version numbering scheme as the development version should be named 2.0 when it is done, as (I understand at least, it is more or less a total rewrite). I change major versions when it is no longer backwards compatible in some major way (new database format without good automatic transition or similar). MAJOR.MINOR.BUGFIX We have major version 1 Minor version 29 and bugfix version 1. If the new version contain new features it should be named 1.30 or 1.30.0 > so please let me know if you find any of those > appealing or disgusting and let me know if you > have a better idea ... but do it soon, as a (minor) > bugfix is on it's way ... If it is a bugfix release then I suggest 1.29.1 > also feel free to let me know what you want us to > do with the stable 2.4 branch in the future ... > (currently it's in deep freeze, bug fix mode) If you can keep the patches compatible with 2.4 kernel that is great but not truely necessary. It would be nice if the util-vserver tool is backwards compatible as people do not change kernel on production servers that much. At least I dont. On the other hand I do not have many produciton servers anymore as I have switched job. :) Regards, // Ola > TIA, > Herbert > > ___ > Vserver mailing list > Vserver@list.linux-vserver.org > http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver > -- - Ola Lundqvist --- / [EMAIL PROTECTED] Annebergsslingan 37 \ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 654 65 KARLSTAD | | +46 (0)54-10 14 30 +46 (0)70-332 1551 | | http://www.opal.dhs.org UIN/icq: 4912500 | \ gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 / --- ___ Vserver mailing list Vserver@list.linux-vserver.org http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver
Re: [Vserver] The Future of Stable 1.2x ...
> If for one am not willing to move my stable boxes to 2.6 kernels until I > am quite sure of their stability. here here, > I'm just staring to move to 1.27 with the 2.4.27 kernel. IIRC there were known problems with 1.27, not to mention security issues with 2.4.27. anyhoo, what about 1.2.10 as suggested by someone else? I'm planning on moving to 2.6 this summer, which means that some production boxes will stay on 2.4 at least until winter/next year. -- Key fingerprint = 40D0 9FFB 9939 7320 8294 05E0 BCC7 02C4 75CC 50D9 We're giving you a new chance in life, and an opportunity to screw it up in a new, original way. ___ Vserver mailing list Vserver@list.linux-vserver.org http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver
Re: [Vserver] The Future of Stable 1.2x ...
Stephan Sachse said: >> also feel free to let me know what you want us to >> do with the stable 2.4 branch in the future ... >> (currently it's in deep freeze, bug fix mode) > If for one am not willing to move my stable boxes to 2.6 kernels until I am quite sure of their stability. I think most sites are happy enough with 2.4 in deep freeze mode, at least until they gain some trust on the stability of 2.6. That is what we all want in production, code freezes. I'm still running 1.22 with 2.4.23 kernel on most of my production boxes. It has been rock stable...so their. I'm just staring to move to 1.27 with the 2.4.27 kernel. -- Luke Computer Science System Administrator Security Administrator,College of Engineering Montana State University-Bozeman,Montana ___ Vserver mailing list Vserver@list.linux-vserver.org http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver
Re: [Vserver] The Future of Stable 1.2x ...
Hi,
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 00:41:04 +0100 Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> don't be alarmed, we are not going to wipe out
> the stable 1.2x branch now (we rather let it die
> in piece, eventually) but we have reached a point
> where the spiffy nomenclature we (I?) came up with
> reaches it's limits ...
>
> ... so we have to decide what should be released
> after 1.29 ... the obvious options are:
>
> * 1.2YY (e.g. 1.210)
> * 1.2.Y (e.g. 1.2.10)
> * 1.2Y(e.g. 1.2A)
> * 1.2-z (e.g. 1.2-final1)
>
> funny but (maybe) problematic names would be:
>
> * 1.30
> * 1.29.1
if [ "1.29" == "1.2.9" ] ; then
echo "1.2.10"
else
echo "1.30"
fi
;)
> also feel free to let me know what you want us to
> do with the stable 2.4 branch in the future ...
> (currently it's in deep freeze, bug fix mode)
since there is no stable 2.6 branch, please keep it up2date
cya later
/stephan
--
/* Nobody will ever see this message :-) */
panic("Cannot initialize video hardware\n");
2.0.38 /usr/src/linux/arch/m68k/atari/atafb.c
pgplcfr162Y5H.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Vserver mailing list
Vserver@list.linux-vserver.org
http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver
[Vserver] The Future of Stable 1.2x ...
... depends on you! ;) Greetings Community! don't be alarmed, we are not going to wipe out the stable 1.2x branch now (we rather let it die in piece, eventually) but we have reached a point where the spiffy nomenclature we (I?) came up with reaches it's limits ... ... so we have to decide what should be released after 1.29 ... the obvious options are: * 1.2YY (e.g. 1.210) * 1.2.Y (e.g. 1.2.10) * 1.2Y(e.g. 1.2A) * 1.2-z (e.g. 1.2-final1) funny but (maybe) problematic names would be: * 1.30 * 1.29.1 so please let me know if you find any of those appealing or disgusting and let me know if you have a better idea ... but do it soon, as a (minor) bugfix is on it's way ... also feel free to let me know what you want us to do with the stable 2.4 branch in the future ... (currently it's in deep freeze, bug fix mode) TIA, Herbert ___ Vserver mailing list Vserver@list.linux-vserver.org http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver
