On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 04:17:32PM +0300, Nir Soffer wrote:
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Nir Soffer <nsoffer(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Martin Sivak <msivak(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>> 1. master
>>>
>>> vdsm-4.19.0-201606011345.gitxxxyyy
>>
>> Ack and +1 to the idea, but I have one small comment. Isn't it usual
>> in Fedora (for example) to use the following?
>>
>> vdsm-4.19.0-0.201606011345.gitxxxyyy
>>
>> Please note the zero in the release part (-0.something). The stable is
>> then released as vdsm-4.19.0-1 keeping the version intact.
>
> Thanks for correcting me Martin, I omitted the release number mistake.
>
>>
>> Martin
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Nir Soffer <nsoffer(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> We are going to branch 4.0 today, and it is a good time to update our
>>> versioning scheme.
>>>
>>> I suggest to use the standard ovirt versioning, use by most projects:
>>>
>>> 1. master
>>>
>>> vdsm-4.19.0-201606011345.gitxxxyyy
>>>
>>> 2. 4.0
>>>
>>> vdsm-4.18.1
>>>
>>> The important invariant is that any build from master is considered newer
>>> compare with the stable builds, since master always contain all stable
>>> code, and new code.
>>>
>>> Second invariant, the most recent build from master is always newer
compared
>>> with any other master build - the timestamp enforces this.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
Dan?
Yes, it's a good idea. I'd appreciate if it is implemented in such a way
that there is no need for an explicit commit to introduce a new version.
Currently it's done by a mere `git tag`.
But that's not a hard requirement. Feel free to have a "bump version"
commit like most other projects out there.