Re: ceph versions

2015-03-30 Thread Gregory Farnum
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Sage Weil wrote: > Resurrecting this thread since we need to make a decision soon. The > opinions broke down like so: > > A - me > B - john > C - alex > D - loic (and drop release names), yehuda, ilya > openstack - dmsimard > > So, most people seem to like D

Re: ceph versions

2015-03-30 Thread Sage Weil
Resurrecting this thread since we need to make a decision soon. The opinions broke down like so: A - me B - john C - alex D - loic (and drop release names), yehuda, ilya openstack - dmsimard So, most people seem to like D (below): On Thu, 26 Feb 2015, Sage Weil wrote: > -- Option D -- "la

Re: ceph versions

2015-03-02 Thread John Spray
On 26/02/2015 23:12, Sage Weil wrote: Hammer will most likely be v0.94[.x]. We're getting awfully close to 0.99, though, which makes many people think 1.0 or 1.00 (isntead of 0.100), and the current versioning is getting a bit silly. So let's talk about alternatives! I'm late to this thread,

Re: ceph versions

2015-02-27 Thread Alex Elsayed
t;>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 27/02/2015 00:59, Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> - Original Message - >>>>>>> From: "Loic Dachary" >>>>>>> To: "Sage Weil&

Re: ceph versions

2015-02-27 Thread Loic Dachary
Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> - Original Message - >>>>>> From: "Loic Dachary" >>>>>> To: "Sage Weil" , ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015

Re: ceph versions

2015-02-27 Thread Alex Elsayed
l Message - >>>>> From: "Loic Dachary" >>>>> To: "Sage Weil" , ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 3:38:31 PM >>>>> Subject: Re: ceph versions >>>>> >>>>&

Re: ceph versions

2015-02-27 Thread Loic Dachary
On 27/02/2015 17:29, Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub wrote: > > > - Original Message - >> From: "Loic Dachary" >> To: "Ilya Dryomov" >> Cc: "Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub" , "Sage Weil" >> , ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org &g

Re: ceph versions

2015-02-27 Thread Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub
- Original Message - > From: "Loic Dachary" > To: "Ilya Dryomov" > Cc: "Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub" , "Sage Weil" > , ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org > Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 5:55:32 AM > Subject: Re: ceph versions > >

Re: ceph versions

2015-02-27 Thread Loic Dachary
>>>> On 27/02/2015 00:59, Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> - Original Message - >>>>>> From: "Loic Dachary" >>>>>> To: "Sage Weil" , ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >>>>>> Se

Re: ceph versions

2015-02-27 Thread Ilya Dryomov
t;> >>>> - Original Message - >>>>> From: "Loic Dachary" >>>>> To: "Sage Weil" , ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 3:38:31 PM >>>>> Subject: Re: ceph versions >>>

Re: ceph versions

2015-02-27 Thread Loic Dachary
>>>> To: "Sage Weil" , 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 expl

Re: ceph versions

2015-02-27 Thread Ilya Dryomov
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:58 AM, Loic Dachary wrote: > > > On 27/02/2015 00:59, Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub wrote: >> >> >> - Original Message - >>> From: "Loic Dachary" >>> To: "Sage Weil" , ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >&

Re: ceph versions

2015-02-26 Thread David Moreau Simard
Can I also throw another option out there ? Openstack uses a version scheme tied to the year of release [1]. Looking back at past releases [2], we can see that for example "Icehouse" was the first release of 2014: "2014.1". Icehouse eventually had stable releases which were versioned 2014.1.1, 201

Re: ceph versions

2015-02-26 Thread Loic Dachary
On 27/02/2015 00:59, Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub wrote: > > > - Original Message - >> From: "Loic Dachary" >> To: "Sage Weil" , ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 3:38:31 PM >> Subject: Re: ceph versions >

Re: ceph versions

2015-02-26 Thread Alex Elsayed
Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub wrote: > > > - Original Message - >> From: "Loic Dachary" >> To: "Sage Weil" , ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org >> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 3:38:31 PM >> Subject: Re: ceph versions >> >> Hi Sage,

Re: ceph versions

2015-02-26 Thread Alex Elsayed
Commentary inline. Note that when I talk about dependencies, I'm speaking as someone who does distro packaging - and thus what would require manual changes on the packager's part vs. ability to specify general constraints. Sage Weil wrote: > Hammer will most likely be v0.94[.x]. We're getting

Re: ceph versions

2015-02-26 Thread Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub
- Original Message - > From: "Loic Dachary" > To: "Sage Weil" , 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

Re: ceph versions

2015-02-26 Thread Loic Dachary
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"

ceph versions

2015-02-26 Thread Sage Weil
Hammer will most likely be v0.94[.x]. We're getting awfully close to 0.99, though, which makes many people think 1.0 or 1.00 (isntead of 0.100), and the current versioning is getting a bit silly. So let's talk about alternatives! Here are a few of options: -- Option A -- "doubles and triples