From: Herbert Poetzl (herbert_at_13thfloor.at)
Date: Fri 07 Jan 2005 - 15:24:42 GMT
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 11:53:41AM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Hello
>
> This is just my opinion on this matter.
>
> On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 12:41:04AM +0100, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> >
> > ... depends on you! ;)
> >
> > Greetings Community!
> >
> > don't be alarmed, we are not going to wipe out
> > the stable 1.2x branch now (we rather let it die
> > in piece, eventually) but we have reached a point
> > where the spiffy nomenclature we (I?) came up with
> > reaches it's limits ...
> >
> > ... so we have to decide what should be released
> > after 1.29 ... the obvious options are:
> >
> > * 1.2YY (e.g. 1.210)
> > * 1.2.Y (e.g. 1.2.10)
> > * 1.2Y (e.g. 1.2A)
> > * 1.2-z (e.g. 1.2-final1)
> >
> > funny but (maybe) problematic names would be:
> >
> > * 1.30
> > * 1.29.1
>
> I suggest one of the above two.
> It would fit the standard version numbering scheme as the
> development version should be named 2.0 when it is done,
> as (I understand at least, it is more or less a total rewrite).
> I change major versions when it is no longer backwards compatible
> in some major way (new database format without good automatic transition
> or similar).
>
> MAJOR.MINOR.BUGFIX
>
> We have major version 1
> Minor version 29
> and bugfix version 1.
>
> If the new version contain new features it should be
> named 1.30 or 1.30.0
>
> > so please let me know if you find any of those
> > appealing or disgusting and let me know if you
> > have a better idea ... but do it soon, as a (minor)
> > bugfix is on it's way ...
>
> If it is a bugfix release then I suggest 1.29.1
okay, thanks, I'll map that according to
http://linux-vserver.org/Release+FAQ and take it
as a vote for 1.2.10 ...
> > also feel free to let me know what you want us to
> > do with the stable 2.4 branch in the future ...
> > (currently it's in deep freeze, bug fix mode)
>
> If you can keep the patches compatible with 2.4 kernel
> that is great but not truely necessary. It would be nice
> if the util-vserver tool is backwards compatible as
> people do not change kernel on production servers that
> much. At least I dont. On the other hand I do not have
> many produciton servers anymore as I have switched job. :)
the alpha util-vserver are 'backwards' compatible
as far as possible (and IIRC even better tested with
2.4 than with 2.6, where the work fine ;)
thanks,
Herbert
PS: let's get the Debian stuff rolling whenever you
have some time ... (i.e. let's meet on the channel)
> Regards,
>
> // Ola
>
> > TIA,
> > Herbert
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Vserver mailing list
> > Vserver_at_list.linux-vserver.org
> > http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver
> >
>
> --
> --------------------- Ola Lundqvist ---------------------------
> / opal_at_debian.org Annebergsslingan 37 \
> | opal_at_lysator.liu.se 654 65 KARLSTAD |
> | +46 (0)54-10 14 30 +46 (0)70-332 1551 |
> | http://www.opal.dhs.org UIN/icq: 4912500 |
> \ gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 /
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Vserver mailing list
> Vserver_at_list.linux-vserver.org
> http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver
_______________________________________________
Vserver mailing list
Vserver_at_list.linux-vserver.org
http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver