As long as the versioning scheme is self-consistent, I don't have any opinion on what we use.
How do Openstack's named releases (cactus, diablo, essex) not work, though? (they're still sortable, right?) (and what was the .3 in 2011.3 supposed to mean? I assume it's not March, considering the October release...) -Dolph ________________________________________ From: Mark McLoughlin [mar...@redhat.com] Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 10:36 AM To: Dolph Mathews Cc: Ziad Sawalha; Thierry Carrez; openstack@lists.launchpad.net Subject: RE: Keystone versioning and tarballs Hi Dolph, On Mon, 2011-10-24 at 14:35 +0000, Dolph Mathews wrote: > We definitely need to publish a tarball for diablo. Cool. Will the version be 1.0 or 2011.3, though? :) > I recently refactored/centralized our versioning (we were reporting > different versions in different places in the codebase). At the same > time, I also set the `keystone.version()` response to 'essex-dev', > since we haven't discussed codebase versioning very thoroughly, and it > needed to be updated to *something* post-diablo. So, this is certainly > open to feedback/suggestions/discussion! Well, a completely non-numeric version doesn't work IMHO. The easiest path is to copy nova and glance, no? i.e diablo was 2011.3 and essex is 2012.1 Cheers, Mark. This email may include confidential information. If you received it in error, please delete it. _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
