[node-devel] Versioning of oVirt Node

[Alon Bar-Lev]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Fabian Deutsch" <fabiand at redhat.com>
> To: arch at ovirt.org, "node-devel" <node-devel at ovirt.org>
> Cc: "Douglas Landgraf" <dlandgra at redhat.com>
> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2014 2:37:05 PM
> Subject: [node-devel] Versioning of oVirt Node
> 
> Hey,
> 
> currently [0] - or since the split into base image and layered image -
> the versioning of Node hasn't been really resolved.
> 
> I'd like to change the versioning of Node with the goal to make it
> directly obvious what oVirt version a Node is targeting.
> 
> Before I continue let me clarify that this is primarily about the
> versioning of the Node ISO.
> The versioning of the wrapper-rpm can possibly follow the naming of the
> ISO, as long as we make yum happy.
> Also this is not about the ovirt-node (pkg) versioning, only about the
> iso image.
> 
> Currently the ISO naming is as follows:
> 
>   ovirt-node-iso-<node-version>-<number>.<number>.<build-date>.\
>   vdsm<ovirt-target-version>.<dist>.iso
> 
> (i.e. ovirt-node-iso-3.0.4-1.0.201401291204.vdsm34.el6.iso)
> 
> The main pain point of this is IMO the vdsm34 snippet - because it
> breaks the whol envr and is currently just added after the edit-node
> pass.
> 
> I'm proposing the following scheme:
> 
>   ovirt-node-iso-<ovirt-target-version>-<build-date>.<number>.<dist>.iso
> 
> (i.e. ovirt-node-iso-3.4.0-20140328.1.el6.iso)
> 
> This should make it obvious to the user what ISO to use.
> 
> 
> Now about the rpm scheme. We can not change this as long as the Engine
> logic has not been updated to use the proposed metadata file:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081969 (Node)
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081970
> 
> Once these two bugs have been addressed we can also change the rpm
> naming.
> In general I'd like to follow the iso naming, thus:
> 
> ovirt-node-iso-<ovirt-target-version>-<build-date>.<number>.<dist>.rpm


I think that we should have upstream version for ovirt node as any other upstream version we have.

I also do not like dates embed within release as it will make our lives difficult when we have proper bug tracking system in place.

I am unsure what 'iso' means... I think it should be removed or converted to subpackage.

Should we also consider parallel versions of different distributions(?) (fc19, fc20).

Pre-release:
ovirt-node-iso-3.4.0-0.$(sequence).$(branch).$(date).dist.rpm

Released:
ovirt-node-iso-3.4.z-1.dist.rpm

Please note that the downstream component is eliminated in upstream, what important in upstream is the source tarball....

ovirt-ndoe-iso-3.4.z.tar.gz

Regards,
Alon