On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 9:45 AM, Vijay Bellur <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 5:40 PM, Shyam Ranganathan <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On 03/14/2018 07:04 PM, Joe Julian wrote: >> > >> > >> > On 03/14/2018 02:25 PM, Vijay Bellur wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 4:25 AM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY >> >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 03/12/2018 02:32 PM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: >> >> > On 03/12/2018 10:34 AM, Atin Mukherjee wrote: >> >> >> * >> >> >> >> >> >> After 4.1, we want to move to either continuous >> >> numbering (like >> >> >> Fedora), or time based (like ubuntu etc) release >> >> numbers. Which >> >> >> is the model we pick is not yet finalized. Happy to >> >> hear opinions. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Not sure how the time based release numbers would make more >> >> sense than >> >> >> the one which Fedora follows. But before I comment further on >> >> this I >> >> >> need to first get a clarity on how the op-versions will be >> >> managed. I'm >> >> >> assuming once we're at GlusterFS 4.1, post that the releases >> >> will be >> >> >> numbered as GlusterFS5, GlusterFS6 ... So from that >> >> perspective, are we >> >> >> going to stick to our current numbering scheme of op-version >> >> where for >> >> >> GlusterFS5 the op-version will be 50000? >> >> > >> >> > Say, yes. >> >> > >> >> > The question is why tie the op-version to the release number? >> That >> >> > mental model needs to break IMO. >> >> > >> >> > With current options like, >> >> > https://docs.gluster.org/en/latest/Upgrade-Guide/op_version/ >> >> <https://docs.gluster.org/en/latest/Upgrade-Guide/op_version/> it >> is >> >> > easier to determine the op-version of the cluster and what it >> >> should be, >> >> > and hence this need not be tied to the gluster release version. >> >> > >> >> > Thoughts? >> >> >> >> I'm okay with that, but—— >> >> >> >> Just to play the Devil's Advocate, having an op-version that bears >> >> some >> >> resemblance to the _version_ number may make it easy/easier to >> >> determine >> >> what the op-version ought to be. >> >> >> >> We aren't going to run out of numbers, so there's no reason to be >> >> "efficient" here. Let's try to make it easy. (Easy to not make a >> >> mistake.) >> >> >> >> My 2¢ >> >> >> >> >> >> +1 to the overall release cadence change proposal and what Kaleb >> >> mentions here. >> >> >> >> Tying op-versions to release numbers seems like an easier approach >> >> than others & one to which we are accustomed to. What are the benefits >> >> of breaking this model? >> >> >> > There is a bit of confusion among the user base when a release happens >> > but the op-version doesn't have a commensurate bump. People ask why they >> > can't set the op-version to match the gluster release version they have >> > installed. If it was completely disconnected from the release version, >> > that might be a great enough mental disconnect that the expectation >> > could go away which would actually cause less confusion. >> >> Above is the reason I state it as well (the breaking of the mental model >> around this), why tie it together when it is not totally related. I also >> agree that, the notion is present that it is tied together and hence >> related, but it may serve us better to break it. >> >> > > I see your perspective. Another related reason for not introducing an > op-version bump in a new release would be that there are no incompatible > features introduced (in the new release). Hence it makes sense to preserve > the older op-version. > Yes. I think it may not be a good idea to introduce an artificial incompatibility when there is none. Probably serves us better if op-versions are mirroring what they are supposed to do. > To make everyone's lives simpler, would it be useful to introduce a > command that provides the max op-version to release number mapping? The > output of the command could look like: > > op-version X: 3.7.0 to 3.7.11 > op-version Y: 3.7.12 to x.y.z > > and so on. > > Thanks, > Vijay > > _______________________________________________ > maintainers mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers > >
_______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
