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

[Shyam Ranganathan]

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.

Shyam