On 05/05/2015 08:54 PM, Steffen W Sørensen wrote:
On 05/05/2015, at 18.52, Sage Weil sw...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2015, Tony Harris wrote:
So with this, will even numbers then be LTS? Since 9.0.0 is following
0.94.x/Hammer, and every other release is normally LTS, I'm guessing
On 05/04/2015 05:09 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
The first Ceph release back in Jan of 2008 was 0.1. That made sense at
the time. We haven't revised the versioning scheme since then, however,
and are now at 0.94.1 (first Hammer point release). To avoid reaching
0.99 (and 0.100 or 1.00?) we have
On Tue, 5 May 2015, Tony Harris wrote:
So with this, will even numbers then be LTS? Since 9.0.0 is following
0.94.x/Hammer, and every other release is normally LTS, I'm guessing 10.x.x,
12.x.x, etc. will be LTS...
It looks that way now, although I can't promise the pattern will hold!
On Tue, 5 May 2015, Joao Eduardo Luis wrote:
On 05/04/2015 05:09 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
The first Ceph release back in Jan of 2008 was 0.1. That made sense at
the time. We haven't revised the versioning scheme since then, however,
and are now at 0.94.1 (first Hammer point release). To
So with this, will even numbers then be LTS? Since 9.0.0 is following
0.94.x/Hammer, and every other release is normally LTS, I'm guessing
10.x.x, 12.x.x, etc. will be LTS...
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Sage Weil sw...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2015, Joao Eduardo Luis wrote:
On
On 05/05/2015, at 18.52, Sage Weil sw...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2015, Tony Harris wrote:
So with this, will even numbers then be LTS? Since 9.0.0 is following
0.94.x/Hammer, and every other release is normally LTS, I'm guessing 10.x.x,
12.x.x, etc. will be LTS...
It looks that
+1 ;-)
On 04/05/2015 18:09, Sage Weil wrote:
The first Ceph release back in Jan of 2008 was 0.1. That made sense at
the time. We haven't revised the versioning scheme since then, however,
and are now at 0.94.1 (first Hammer point release). To avoid reaching
0.99 (and 0.100 or 1.00?) we
