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

[Vijay Bellur]

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

and so on.

Thanks,
Vijay
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/maintainers/attachments/20180314/fc8a1e8f/attachment-0001.html>