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

[Vijay Bellur]

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 4:25 AM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY <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/ 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?

Thanks,
Vijay
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/maintainers/attachments/20180314/cdef0321/attachment.html>