Open Stack

On 3 June 2015 at 14:09, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org> wrote:
> 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...

We go to great lengths to ensure folks can upgrade from b1 -> b3 and
b2 -> release. I am really looking for a way to advertise that, incase
its useful.

... But it could/will be missing aligned docs and translations. So
maybe its not enough different from beta... needs more thought.

> 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.

I think that could still work.

But I was attempting to skip the exception of creating 11.2.1 just
because 11.2.0.dev42 fixes a critical bug present in 11.2.1. You would
have to wait for the next (time bound) release to get the extra bug
fixes and features.

Thanks,
John