I'll do a new release according to the new versioning scheme (3.13.0-rc1) later today if nobody objects. It's still not finalized, but doing so makes everybody aware and is also a test for me (plus, we could move to 3.13.0 [stable] on April, 2nd).
Rainer > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:rsyslog- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rainer Gerhards > Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 11:01 AM > To: rsyslog-users > Subject: Re: [rsyslog] rsyslog version numbering > > [Mmmhhh. I thought I had sent a reply from the pda. Well, please don't > wonder if it shows up some time later ;) So here is the full response:] > > Any version with a devstate designation (-mf, -rc) is unstable. Every > version without it is stable (this will be far less versions as we > reach > stable only every now and then). > > So what would the current version be named? Mhh... It's not an easy > one-to-one mapping. Because the process changes a bit. Today, I add new > major and minor features at the same time while stabilizing old > features. This is also the primary reason why we so far have very > infrequently new features in the stable release: whenever I stabilize > an > "older" feature, I introduce new bugs while working on the new ones. > > That'll change a bit with the new scheme, as I then will freeze code > once the focus feature has been implemented. When I start with the next > focus feature, patches will be applied to both the "older" code as well > as the one I am working on. As such, features become stable during the > process. It obviously is some more work to do for me, as I now need to > apply patches to multiple code paths (to keep this reasonable, I > limited > the stable releases to only the latest minor version). The plus is that > we get much more feature-rich stable releases, so I think the > additional > development time is well spent. And for the ultra-conservative folks, > there is always the old, feature-less previous version stable (v2 in > this case). > > After having said this, the current release would probably have two > names: > > 3.12.0-rc3 --> the stabilized module loader release > 3.13.0-mf2 --> the new relp-enabled release which has not yet real relp > support > > I am also now of the thought that we do not necessarily need to move to > 4.0.0 to cover this new scheme. I'd say I can simply release a 3.13.0 > stable next week (based on the current 3.12.5) and then continue to > work > on relp in 3.14.0-rc0 (there will probably be no -mf for that release > as > relp support is already quite far). > > Question now: how can I just declare the release to be stable even > though it contains the RELP code? Answer: I am lucky ;) the relp code > *inside* rsyslog is just two slim inout/output plugins. No core > changes. > The actual relp code comes via librelp, which is external. Thanks to > this coincidence, I did not really introduce any new features since the > last feature focus and so the rest of rsyslog could mature. At no other > point in the v3 tree I would have been able to do this. That is yet > another reason that I'd like to settle the issue by mid next week - the > initial version of relp is almost done and I am eager to move on. > > Again, feedback appreciated. > > Rainer > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:rsyslog- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Biebl > > Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 3:16 PM > > To: rsyslog-users > > Subject: Re: [rsyslog] rsyslog version numbering > > > > 2008/3/29, Michael Biebl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > 2008/3/29, Rainer Gerhards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > > I needed some time to digest all this myself ;) I've now done > that > > and > > > > put it all into a HTML page. That doesn't imply it is the > scheme > > we will > > > > finally use, but if so, it saves me some time. I have also > > described the > > > > development process a bit. I think this is vital for > > understanding why I > > > > need certain release numbers. The info is here (with the now > > irrelevant > > > > text at the end of the doc): > > > > > > > > http://www.rsyslog.com/doc-version_naming.html > > > > > > > > I am still a bit undecided if we really need to go v4 or can > > start this > > > > (or whatever else) in the v3 branch... > > > > > > > > Feedback appreciated. > > > > > > > > > What I'm missing from the document, is a distinction between stable > > > and unstable releases > > > (or are all releases with -rc? unstable and without stable?) > > > > I.e., are -mf releases to be considered stable or not? > > Would the current 3.12.5 be an rc release in the new versioning > scheme? > > > > Michael > > > > -- > > Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the > > universe are pointed away from Earth? > > _______________________________________________ > > rsyslog mailing list > > http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog > _______________________________________________ > rsyslog mailing list > http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog _______________________________________________ rsyslog mailing list http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog
