On 06/03/2015 05:45 PM, Ed Leafe wrote:
On Jun 3, 2015, at 9:37 AM, Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com wrote:
If this doesn't match semver, then don't call it semvar versioning. We
should do what's right for the nova project, rather than try to fit with an
arbitrary set of versioning rules
Excerpts from Daniel P. Berrange's message of 2015-06-03 15:37:06 +0100:
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 10:26:03AM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote:
Excerpts from Daniel P. Berrange's message of 2015-06-03 14:28:01 +0100:
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 03:09:28PM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
John Garbutt
On Jun 3, 2015, at 9:37 AM, Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com wrote:
If this doesn't match semver, then don't call it semvar versioning.
We should do what's right for the nova project, rather than try to
fit with an arbitrary set of versioning rules defined elsewhere.
Semver is hardly
Excerpts from John Garbutt's message of 2015-06-03 14:24:40 +0100:
On 3 June 2015 at 14:09, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org wrote:
John Garbutt wrote:
Given we are thinking Liberty is moving to semantic versioning, maybe
it could look like this:
* 12.0.1 (liberty-1) will have some
Excerpts from Daniel P. Berrange's message of 2015-06-03 14:28:01 +0100:
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 03:09:28PM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
John Garbutt wrote:
Given we are thinking Liberty is moving to semantic versioning, maybe
it could look like this:
* 12.0.1 (liberty-1) will have
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 10:26:03AM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote:
Excerpts from Daniel P. Berrange's message of 2015-06-03 14:28:01 +0100:
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 03:09:28PM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
John Garbutt wrote:
Given we are thinking Liberty is moving to semantic versioning,
On Jun 3, 2015, at 9:10 AM, Doug Hellmann d...@doughellmann.com wrote:
These numbers don't match the meaning of semver, though. Semver
describes clearly why you increment each part of the version number
[1]. We can't call it semver and then make up our own completely
different rules.
Heh, I
Excerpts from John Garbutt's message of 2015-06-03 14:01:06 +0100:
Hi,
(To be clear, this is a proposal to be discussed and not a decision.)
The version number can help us communicate that:
* you can consume a milestone release
** ... but the docs and translations may not be totally up to
Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2015-06-03 15:09:28 +0200:
John Garbutt wrote:
Given we are thinking Liberty is moving to semantic versioning, maybe
it could look like this:
* 12.0.1 (liberty-1) will have some features (hopefully), and will be a tag
* 12.0.2.dev1 is the first
On 3 June 2015 at 14:09, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org wrote:
John Garbutt wrote:
Given we are thinking Liberty is moving to semantic versioning, maybe
it could look like this:
* 12.0.1 (liberty-1) will have some features (hopefully), and will be a tag
* 12.0.2.dev1 is the first commit
Hi,
(To be clear, this is a proposal to be discussed and not a decision.)
The version number can help us communicate that:
* you can consume a milestone release
** ... but the docs and translations may not be totally up to date
* you can consume any commit
** ... but there is no formal tracking
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 02:01:06PM +0100, John Garbutt wrote:
Hi,
(To be clear, this is a proposal to be discussed and not a decision.)
The version number can help us communicate that:
* you can consume a milestone release
** ... but the docs and translations may not be totally up to date
John Garbutt wrote:
Given we are thinking Liberty is moving to semantic versioning, maybe
it could look like this:
* 12.0.1 (liberty-1) will have some features (hopefully), and will be a tag
* 12.0.2.dev1 is the first commit after 12.0.1 and does not get a tag
* 12.0.2.dev1234 would be the
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 03:09:28PM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
John Garbutt wrote:
Given we are thinking Liberty is moving to semantic versioning, maybe
it could look like this:
* 12.0.1 (liberty-1) will have some features (hopefully), and will be a tag
* 12.0.2.dev1 is the first commit
On 3 June 2015 at 15:22, Doug Hellmann d...@doughellmann.com wrote:
Excerpts from John Garbutt's message of 2015-06-03 14:24:40 +0100:
On 3 June 2015 at 14:09, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org wrote:
John Garbutt wrote:
Given we are thinking Liberty is moving to semantic versioning,
On 3 June 2015 at 15:37, Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 10:26:03AM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote:
Excerpts from Daniel P. Berrange's message of 2015-06-03 14:28:01 +0100:
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 03:09:28PM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
John Garbutt wrote:
On 3 June 2015 at 17:35, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org wrote:
John Garbutt wrote:
I support moving nova to intermediate release, but not this cycle.
+1
My main motivation here is actually making it clear how useful a
milestone release can be to get access to a feature you really,
John Garbutt wrote:
I support moving nova to intermediate release, but not this cycle.
+1
My main motivation here is actually making it clear how useful a
milestone release can be to get access to a feature you really, really
need much more quickly.
Its a shame its called a beta,
18 matches
Mail list logo
