Re: [Xen-devel] (release) versioning

[David Vrabel <david.vrabel@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 06/05/15 08:25, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 06.05.15 at 09:21, <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 04:54:01PM +0100, 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 (there was some debate as to whether, despite
>>> being redundant, to attach -rc1 to it to make clear this is not an
>>> actual release).
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> One exceptional situation is that we had 4.1.6 and 4.1.6.1. I don't
>> expect that to happen very often, but we do make mistakes in the release
>> process and figure out we need to release a slightly updated version.
>> How does this fit into the proposed scheme?
> 
> I think we would just attach a .1 to the previous version the same
> way we did there, i.e. 5.2.0.1.

What happens if this minor fixup itself needs a micro fixup?  Do we then
have 5.2.0.1.1? etc. etc.

Why not always bump the minor version regardless of how small the change
was?

(I would also like the bike shed in purple with yellow stripes).

David

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