Open Stack

Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2015-06-03 15:09:28 +0200:
> John Garbutt wrote:
> > Given we are thinking Liberty is moving to semantic versioning, maybe
> > it could look like this:
> > * 12.0.1 (liberty-1) will have some features (hopefully), and will be a tag
> > * 12.0.2.dev1 is the first commit after 12.0.1 and does not get a tag
> > * 12.0.2.dev1234 would be the 1234th commit after 12.0.1
> > * 12.0.2 (liberty-2) will also contain features
> > * 12.0.3 (liberty-3) is focused on priority features (given the current plan)
> > * 12.1 is Liberty release is just bug fixes on 12.0.3
> > * 13.0.0.dev1 would be the first commit to open M
> 
> The current thinking on the release management team would be to do
> something like this for projects that are still doing milestone-based
> development:
> 
> * 12.0.0b1 (liberty-1)
> * 12.0.0b2 (liberty-2)
> * 12.0.0b3 (liberty-3)
> * 12.0.0rc1 (RC1)
> * 12.0.0 is Liberty release
> 
> I think assuming people can tell 12.0.1 is an alpha and 12.1 is a
> release that is just bug fixes over 12.0.3 is a bit crazy...
> 
> The alternative would be to go full intermediary releases and do:
> 
> * 11.1.0
> * 11.2.0
> * 11.2.1
> * 11.3.0
> * 11.3.1 (oh! that happens to also be the "liberty" release!)
> * 11.4.0
> 
> I don't think we can maintain an middle ground.

In the other thread on versioning we talked about using major version
bumps at our release boundaries as a way to signal major intermediate
upgrade points (to go from 12 to 14 you have to first go from 12
to 13 and then 13 to 14).  It's not minimal semver, but it may make
sense to do that anyway if we have those sorts of upgrade requirements.

Doug