s.
>
>
> Regards.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Guto Veronezi
> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 18:34
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] version naming : drop the 4.
>
> Daan,
>
> As we still plan to introduc
our users if they've any feedback for us.
Regards.
From: Guto Veronezi
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 18:34
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] version naming : drop the 4.
Daan,
As we still plan to introduce disruptive changes (in
Daan,
As we still plan to introduce disruptive changes (in a cautious and
structured way) in the major versions, all my concerns are met; I do not
have further technical reasons to keep the "4.".
Best regards,
Daniel Salvador (gutoveronezi)
On 2/12/24 11:55, Daan Hoogland wrote:
bump,
bump,
@Daniel Salvador is there any technical reason to keep the 4? any
reason why there must be a 5 instead of a 21, 22 or 23? We are
maintaining 4 number semantic versioning for no reason, as I see it.
On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 12:02 PM Daan Hoogland wrote:
>
> Daniel, "technical" reasons for
Daniel, "technical" reasons for dropping the 4 are all in the field of
social engineering. In practice (as I think Wei also described) we are
already treating the "minor" version number as major version. Since
4.0 or 4.1 (don´t remember) there has been renewed talk of a 5 , but
never enough reason
Hi Daniel,
If we are discussing 5.0, I would have the same concern as you.
What we are discussing is dropping 4.x. The fact is, we will never release
5.0 (anyone disagree ?)
In this case, the major version 4.x becomes useless.
If we compare 4.20.0/4.21.0 with 20.0/21.0, it is obvious which is
.10?
Regards,
Nicolas Vazquez
From: Nux
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2024 6:11 PM
To:dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: Wei ZHOU
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] version naming : drop the 4.
An interesting proposition, I like it.
It would also relieve us from having to come up w
ido
> >>>
> >>>> On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 12:27 AM Wei ZHOU
> >> wrote:
> >>>>> Yes, the ubuntu version naming is the best in my opinion.
> >>>>> Other than the version naming, we need to decide the frequency of
> major
>
o
Ubuntu .04
and .10?
Regards,
Nicolas Vazquez
From: Nux
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2024 6:11 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: Wei ZHOU
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] version naming : drop the 4.
An interesting proposition, I like it.
It would also relieve us from h
t; >>> 在 2024年1月23日星期二，Nicolas Vazquez
> >>> 写道：
> >>>
> >>>> I like this idea as well, even if its .MM or YY.MM.
> >>>>
> >>>> Would we want to define delivery months for releases similar to
> >&g
__
From: Nux
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2024 6:11 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: Wei ZHOU
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] version naming : drop the 4.
An interesting proposition, I like it.
It would also relieve us from having to come up with any over-the-top
feature or change for a
similar to Ubuntu .04
and .10?
Regards,
Nicolas Vazquez
From: Nux
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2024 6:11 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: Wei ZHOU
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] version naming : drop the 4.
An interesting proposition, I like it.
It would also relieve us
gt;
> > >> Would we want to define delivery months for releases similar to
> Ubuntu .04
> > >> and .10?
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >> Nicolas Vazquez
> > >>
> > >> From: Nux
>
or releases similar to Ubuntu .04
> >> and .10?
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Nicolas Vazquez
> >> ____________
> >> From: Nux
> >> Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2024 6:11 PM
> >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> &
if its .MM or YY.MM.
Would we want to define delivery months for releases similar to Ubuntu .04
and .10?
Regards,
Nicolas Vazquez
From: Nux
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2024 6:11 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: Wei ZHOU
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] version naming
we want to define delivery months for releases similar to Ubuntu .04
> > and .10?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Nicolas Vazquez
> >
> > From: Nux
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2024 6:11 PM
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> >
Tuesday, January 23, 2024 6:11 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Cc: Wei ZHOU
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] version naming : drop the 4.
>
> An interesting proposition, I like it.
> It would also relieve us from having to come up with any over-the-top
> feature or change for a
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] version naming : drop the 4.
An interesting proposition, I like it.
It would also relieve us from having to come up with any over-the-top
feature or change for a major version change.
On 2024-01-23 14:49, Wido den Hollander wrote:
> We could look at Ubuntu, and ot
An interesting proposition, I like it.
It would also relieve us from having to come up with any over-the-top
feature or change for a major version change.
On 2024-01-23 14:49, Wido den Hollander wrote:
We could look at Ubuntu, and other projects, and call it 2025.01 if we
release it in Jan
Op 22/01/2024 om 12:17 schreef Wei ZHOU:
+1 with 20.0
5.0 sounds like a leap with lots of significant changes. Unfortunately it
has not been discussed what needs to be done.
20.0 (or 24.0) looks better.
We could look at Ubuntu, and other projects, and call it 2025.01 if we
release it in
Then with this kind of thinking we'll need a truly monumental
change/features to warrant a "v5".
On 2024-01-22 11:17, Wei ZHOU wrote:
+1 with 20.0
5.0 sounds like a leap with lots of significant changes. Unfortunately
it
has not been discussed what needs to be done.
20.0 (or 24.0) looks
+1 with 20.0
5.0 sounds like a leap with lots of significant changes. Unfortunately it
has not been discussed what needs to be done.
20.0 (or 24.0) looks better.
Wei
On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 at 12:01, Daan Hoogland wrote:
> João,
> I think we should not consider 5.0, but go to 20,0 that is more in
João,
I think we should not consider 5.0, but go to 20,0 that is more in
line with what we've actually been doing (semantic versioning from the
second digit)
On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 11:53 AM Nux wrote:
>
> LGTM!
>
> On 2024-01-19 19:19, João Jandre Paraquetti wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I agree
LGTM!
On 2024-01-19 19:19, João Jandre Paraquetti wrote:
Hi all,
I agree that our current versioning schema doesn't make much sense, as
"minors" introduce pretty big features; even backward incompatibilities
are introduced in minor versions sometimes.
As the current plan is to have 4.20 by
Hi all,
I agree that our current versioning schema doesn't make much sense, as
"minors" introduce pretty big features; even backward incompatibilities
are introduced in minor versions sometimes.
As the current plan is to have 4.20 by June, I think we should stick to
it and still have the
25 matches
Mail list logo
