[Gluster-devel] [Gluster-Maintainers] Proposal to change the version numbers of Gluster project

[Atin Mukherjee]

On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 9:45 AM, Vijay Bellur <vbellur at redhat.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 5:40 PM, Shyam Ranganathan <srangana at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 03/14/2018 07:04 PM, Joe Julian wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On 03/14/2018 02:25 PM, Vijay Bellur wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 4:25 AM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY
>> >> <kkeithle at redhat.com <mailto:kkeithle at redhat.com>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>     On 03/12/2018 02:32 PM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote:
>> >>     > On 03/12/2018 10:34 AM, Atin Mukherjee wrote:
>> >>     >>       *
>> >>     >>
>> >>     >>         After 4.1, we want to move to either continuous
>> >>     numbering (like
>> >>     >>         Fedora), or time based (like ubuntu etc) release
>> >>     numbers. Which
>> >>     >>         is the model we pick is not yet finalized. Happy to
>> >>     hear opinions.
>> >>     >>
>> >>     >>
>> >>     >> Not sure how the time based release numbers would make more
>> >>     sense than
>> >>     >> the one which Fedora follows. But before I comment further on
>> >>     this I
>> >>     >> need to first get a clarity on how the op-versions will be
>> >>     managed. I'm
>> >>     >> assuming once we're at GlusterFS 4.1, post that the releases
>> >>     will be
>> >>     >> numbered as GlusterFS5, GlusterFS6 ... So from that
>> >>     perspective, are we
>> >>     >> going to stick to our current numbering scheme of op-version
>> >>     where for
>> >>     >> GlusterFS5 the op-version will be 50000?
>> >>     >
>> >>     > Say, yes.
>> >>     >
>> >>     > The question is why tie the op-version to the release number?
>> That
>> >>     > mental model needs to break IMO.
>> >>     >
>> >>     > With current options like,
>> >>     > https://docs.gluster.org/en/latest/Upgrade-Guide/op_version/
>> >>     <https://docs.gluster.org/en/latest/Upgrade-Guide/op_version/> it
>> is
>> >>     > easier to determine the op-version of the cluster and what it
>> >>     should be,
>> >>     > and hence this need not be tied to the gluster release version.
>> >>     >
>> >>     > Thoughts?
>> >>
>> >>     I'm okay with that, but——
>> >>
>> >>     Just to play the Devil's Advocate, having an op-version that bears
>> >>     some
>> >>     resemblance to the _version_ number may make it easy/easier to
>> >>     determine
>> >>     what the op-version ought to be.
>> >>
>> >>     We aren't going to run out of numbers, so there's no reason to be
>> >>     "efficient" here. Let's try to make it easy. (Easy to not make a
>> >>     mistake.)
>> >>
>> >>     My 2¢
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> +1 to the overall release cadence change proposal and what Kaleb
>> >> mentions here.
>> >>
>> >> Tying op-versions to release numbers seems like an easier approach
>> >> than others & one to which we are accustomed to. What are the benefits
>> >> of breaking this model?
>> >>
>> > There is a bit of confusion among the user base when a release happens
>> > but the op-version doesn't have a commensurate bump. People ask why they
>> > can't set the op-version to match the gluster release version they have
>> > installed. If it was completely disconnected from the release version,
>> > that might be a great enough mental disconnect that the expectation
>> > could go away which would actually cause less confusion.
>>
>> Above is the reason I state it as well (the breaking of the mental model
>> around this), why tie it together when it is not totally related. I also
>> agree that, the notion is present that it is tied together and hence
>> related, but it may serve us better to break it.
>>
>>
>
> I see your perspective. Another related reason for not introducing an
> op-version bump in a new release would be that there are no incompatible
> features introduced (in the new release). Hence it makes sense to preserve
> the older op-version.
>
> To make everyone's lives simpler, would it be useful to introduce a
> command that provides the max op-version to release number mapping? The
> output of the command could look like:
>
> op-version X: 3.7.0 to 3.7.11
> op-version Y: 3.7.12 to x.y.z
>

We already have introduced an option called cluster.max-op-version where
one can run a command like "gluster v get all cluster.max-op-version" to
determine what highest op-version the cluster can be bumped up to. IMO,
this helps users not to look at the document for at given x.y.z release the
op-version has to be bumped up to XXXXX .  Isn't that sufficient for this
requirement?


>
> and so on.
>
> Thanks,
> Vijay
>
> _______________________________________________
> maintainers mailing list
> maintainers at gluster.org
> http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-devel/attachments/20180315/5bec1bb2/attachment-0001.html>