Re: [Xen-devel] (release) versioning

[Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 2015-05-05 at 18:05 +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 05/05/15 16:54, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > on the hackathon we also discussed possibly changing the versioning
> > of Xen. The main rationale for the proposal is that (just like in many
> > other software projects) version numbers (in particular the major
> > one) currently don't really convey much information. The proposal is
> > to take gcc's new versioning scheme as a basis (i.e. I'm not going to
> > claim that the below is an exact copy of theirs): Major releases
> > always increment the major version number. Minor version 0 is
> > reserved to the development cycle, i.e. the first release in any
> > release series would be 5.1.0. RCs would be expressed through the
> > 3rd digit, i.e. the first RC of the currently being worked on release
> > would be 5.0.1
>
I like this.

>  (there was some debate as to whether, despite
> > being redundant, to attach -rc1 to it to make clear this is not an
> > actual release).
> >
I see the point of making it clear enough that it's an RC, but then I
don't like the redundancy. I.e., seeing something liek 5.0.1-rc1,
5.0.2-rc2, 5.0.3-rc3 would make me wonder what happened to 5.0.2-rc1, to
5.0.3-rc1 and -rc2 etc.

> > So comparing current and new schemes things would go
> >
> >     OLD                     NEW
> >     4.6-unstable            5.0-unstable (or 5.0.0)
> >     4.6.0-rc1                       5.0.1 (-rc1)
> >     ...                     ...
> >     4.6.0-rcN                       5.0.N (-rcN)
> >     4.6.0                   5.1.0
> >     4.6.1-rc1                       5.1.1 (-rc1)
> >     ...                     ...
> >     4.6.1                   5.2.0
> >
It also feels a bit odd here, still if we keep the -rcX, that 5.0.N-rcN
is the release candidate for 5.1.0... Wouldn't one then be the least
surprised by just seeing the -rcN part dropped and 5.0.N be released?

> > This additionally has the benefit that taking only the numeric
> > part of the version string then would sort properly.
> >
> > Any comments or alternative proposals are welcome.
> 
Well, if we decide to keep the -rcX, then the 3rd digit will be:
 - always .0 for actual releases
 - always the same as -rc* for RCs

so it looks to me that we can just kill it and have:

 5.0-unstable
   5.1-rc1
   5.1-rc2
   ...
   5.1-rcN
 5.1
   5.2-rc1
   ...
 5.3

> +1 (relayed from the hackathon)
> 
All the above being said and FWIW, overall, +1 from me too.

Regards,
Dario

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel