[openstack-dev] RFC: last minute changes to Oslo library versioning and naming

Chuck Short chuck.short at canonical.com
Tue Mar 5 17:03:25 UTC 2013


On 13-03-05 09:02 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> Hey,
>
> The thread on naming of namespace packages[1] and the discussion about
> PEP426 on distutils-sig[2] have lead me to these conclusion:
>
>    - Naming the package oslo.config is a better choice than oslo-config.
>      I don't think there's necessarily a standard for naming these
>      things but it seems more likely that period-separated will become
>      more common than hyphen-separated (i.e. zope.interface vs
>      oslo-config)
>
>    - The date based 2013.1 version is likely to be disallowed by PEP426
>      when it is ratified and we'll end up making the date based version
>      a "private version" but 0.2013.1 would be the version on PyPI. Uggh.
>
>    - I'm coming around to the idea of using semantic versioning (i.e.
>      x.y.z) and increasing the major number when removing any deprecated
>      APIs. That certainly is the trend expressed in PEP426 and on
>      distutils-sig. I'd be far more reluctant to actually remove
>      deprecated APIs, though, so this would change our policy from
>      "remove APIs after a year of deprecation" to "very rarely making
>      any incompatible changes to our APIs"
>
>    - With semantic versioning, I figure we'd increase the micro number
>      when we do release from the stable branch and increase the minor
>      number with every coordinated OpenStack release.
>
> In practical terms, I'm proposing doing:
>
>   -package = 'oslo-config'
>   -version = '2013.1'
>   +package = 'oslo.config'
>   +version = '1.1.0'
>
> in oslo-config's setup.py
>
> I know this is painful for packagers. In Fedora, I'll have to set an
> "epoch" which packagers always hate doing. In Debian, it'll probably
> mean the package name changing to python-oslo.config.
>
> However, this is why we didn't publish directly to PyPI - we wanted the
> opportunity to catch issues like this. So, I'm thinking we should just
> go for it ASAP.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> Mark.
>
> [1] - http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-February/thread.html#6078
> [2] - http://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/2013-March/thread.html#20054
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
+1

We are going to have add an epoch as well.

chuck



More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list