Hi Jafar,
On 6/2/2016 5:16 PM, Jafar Al-Gharaibeh wrote:
On 6/2/2016 11:43 AM, Donald Sharp wrote:
How do the releases relate to each other? Not sure if it is a
problem. Keep numbering disconnected since we don't currently have CE
and YE connected?
This boils down to the question of how much different YE from CE is.
Different numbering schemes will give the impression that we have
completely different versions of Quagga. That is going to be confusing.
I don't think that is the case, and I don't think that is the direction
we want to take. This is the reason I suggested the comment (CE is a
superset of YE...)
I think CE being a superset of YE makes sense.
in the document. The vast majority of patches (if not
all) should make their way into both releases. With CE having a shorter
release cycle, such updates will show up there first typically. We
shouldn't allow code/features divergence to keep things simple for both
maintainers and users. Some new/adventurous/controversial features that
only get a simple majority vote are good examples of features that will
be in CE but not in YE for an "extended" period of time. They either
stay there until they are deemed to be worthy of inclusion of YE, or
continued to be experimental for more time. In some cases we might even
get to the point where a feature should be dropped altogether if it
proves to be problematic or un-useful.
I also think this is right.
The point is: we shouldn't allow bug fixes, "small" patches, or any
agreed upon (super majority) patches to make it to CE and slip away
cycle after cycle without including them in YE.
It all depends on how long/what is needed to go from majority decision
to unanimity. (And be considered by those driving YE.) This may be a
very short time or, as you point out above, never.
YE should be brought up
to speed with CE every YE release.
Another way of looking at this, without impacting the YE process, is
that a CE release will always include all patches/features of the
existing (previous) YE release. I think this is the intent of the
current CE process, but it would be good to make this explicit.
Some new features might be carried
over a few cycles before they get included in YE but that doesn't mean
CE and YE should have release numbers completely independent of each
other.
Given that CE is always a superset of YE, this seems reasonable and
manageable.
They should have something in common. Here is one idea I have
regarding numbering releases:
Quagga-CE-Major.Minor-CEMajor.CEMinor
Quagga-YE-Major.Minor
Identical releases:
Quagga-CE-1.0-0.0
Quagga-YE-1.0
Add minor feature X to CE
Quagga-CE-1.0-0.1
Quagga-YE-1.0
Add minor feature Y to CE
Quagga-CE-1.0-0.2
Quagga-YE-1.0
Move feature Y to YE
Quagga-CE-1.1-0.1
Quagga-YE-1.1
As you can see, CE major and CE minor moves on their own. But whenever a
patch is integrated with YE, the associated numbers are carried over to
the main Major/Minor numbers.
At a high level, I think this is workable, with the caveat that I think
hyphens in version numbers aren't great, so how about just using another
period? I think this would yield more intuitive release numbering.
Also as CE is a time based release, changing CE rev number based on
features doesn't work so well. In the current proposed process, CEmajor
would change 2X a year, while CEMinor would change as needed for bug fix
minor releases. so versions would be:
- initial rel
Quagga-CE-<YE-current-version>.1.0
- 6 mo later
Quagga-CE-<YE-current-version>.2.0
- maint. release
Quagga-CE-<YE-current-version>.2.1
- 6 mo after 2.0
Quagga-CE-<YE-current-version>.3.0
You'll note that ce numbers didn't change when YE rev changes. Another
option is that CEmajor resets to 1 on a change in YE version. And would
look like:
-Quagga YE release
Quagga-YE-<ye-version1>
- initial rel
Quagga-CE-<ye-version1>.1.0
- 6 mo later
Quagga-CE-<ye-version1>.2.0
-Quagga YE release
Quagga-YE-<ye-version2>
- maint. release
// main release on prior ce release so ye rev doesn't change
Quagga-CE-<ye-version1>.2.1
- 6 mo after 2.0
Quagga-CE-<ye-version2>.1.0
I think this works too.
What do you (anyone) think?
Lou
Cheers,
Jafar
_______________________________________________
Quagga-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
_______________________________________________
Quagga-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
