openstack team mailing list archive

[Mark McLoughlin <markmc@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 10:22 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > We still have a problem with versioning, though.
> > 
> >   - Essex keystone will be 2012.1
> > 
> >   - Diablo keystone was tagged as 2011.3
> > 
> >   - Diablo keystone was actually versioned as 1.0 (see setup.py) even 
> >     though version() returns 0.9
> > 
> >   - stable/diablo is now versioned as 0.9.1 - i.e. behind the diablo 
> >     version number!
> > 
> > I think we should just adopt the YYYY.N versioning on stable/diablo, but
> > this will be the first time we've released from a stable branch. How
> > does 2011.3.1 sound?
> 
> Good catch, I only looked into __init__.py :)
> 
> I guess we can do do "1.0.1" or "2011.3.1". I prefer "1.0.1", since
> Diablo keystone was versioned "1.0". "2011.3" is actually an OpenStack
> version number, at this point if we could keep such versioning for the
> official common OpenStack releases... If it's too confusing the 2011.3
> tag could be renamed :)

Well, when I asked before whether the 1.0 version in setup.py or the
2011.3 tag was the correct version, I understood that it was the latter:

  http://www.mail-archive.com/openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg04967.html

and so Fedora used the 2011.3 version for packaging diablo keystone.

You seem to be suggesting that incubating projects should follow a
different versioning scheme until they are accepted? I'd much rather see
incubating projects show that they can align themselves with the other
projects, rather than have them do something different.

> So I would realign both __init__.py and setup.py with a 1.0.1 that is
> superior to the 0.9 and 1.0 that were apparent in the Diablo release.

But not superior to 2011.3 which was also apparent :)

> Bonus points for calling a version function from setup.py to avoid such
> issues in the future.

That has since been added.

Cheers,
Mark.