Open Stack

Agree with Thierry, IMO it sounds more consistent

On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org>
wrote:

> Doug Hellmann wrote:
> > [...]
> > I put together a little script [1] to try to count the previous
> > releases for projects, to use that as the basis for their first
> > SemVer-based version number. I pasted the output into an etherpad
> > [2] and started making notes about proposed release numbers at the
> > top. For now, I'm only working with the projects that have been
> > managed by the release team (have the "release:managed" tag in the
> > governance repository), but it should be easy enough for other projects
> > to use the same idea to pick a version number.
>
> Your script missed 2015.1 tags for some reason...
>
> I still think we should count the number of "integrated" releases
> instead of the number of releases (basically considering pre-integration
> releases as 0.x releases). That would give:
>
> ceilometer 5.0.0
> cinder 7.0.0
> glance 11.0.0
> heat 5.0.0
> horizon 8.0.0
> ironic 2.0.0
> keystone 8.0.0
> neutron* 7.0.0
> nova 12.0.0
> sahara 3.0.0
> trove 4.0.0
>
> We also traditionally "managed" the previously-incubated projects. That
> would add the following to the mix:
>
> barbican 1.0.0
> designate 1.0.0
> manila 1.0.0
> zaqar 1.0.0
>
> --
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>



-- 
Sincerely yours,
Sergey Lukjanov
Sahara Technical Lead
(OpenStack Data Processing)
Principal Software Engineer
Mirantis Inc.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150616/99d53c54/attachment.html>