Re: [Xen-devel] (release) versioning

[Tim Deegan <tim@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

At 16:54 +0100 on 05 May (1430844841), Jan Beulich wrote:
> 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
> 

I prefer the old scheme to the proposed one.  In particular:
 - it's not at all clear to an outsider that 5.0.x is
   unstable and unsupported.
 - main releases of Xen will always be "x.1.0", which makes them
   look like point releases; all the more so because actual point
   releases will be "x.2.0" &c.

If the problem is that the major version number doesn't mean anything,
then we could just drop it.   E.g. more like:

        OLD                     NEW
        4.6-unstable            6-unstable
        4.6.0-rc1               6.0-rc1
        ...                     ...
        4.6.0-rcN               6.0-rcN
        4.6.0                   6.0
        4.6.1-rc1               6.1-rc1
        ...                     ...
        4.6.1                   6.1
        4.7-unstable            7-unstable

> This additionally has the benefit that taking only the numeric
> part of the version string then would sort properly.

With s/6.0/6.0-release/ then the scheme above sorts OK too.  I don't
see why being able to sort RCs based only on the numbers would be
useful.

Tim.

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