| Message ID | 1341409564-26660-1-git-send-email-wido@widodh.nl (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
Hmmm — we generally try to modify these versions when the API changes, not on every sprint. It looks to me like Sage added one function in 0.45 where we maybe should have bumped it, but that was a long time ago and at this point we should maybe just eat it? -Greg On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 at 6:46 AM, Wido den Hollander wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Wido den Hollander <wido@widodh.nl (mailto:wido@widodh.nl)> > --- > src/include/rados/librados.h | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/src/include/rados/librados.h b/src/include/rados/librados.h > index 9f723f7..4870b0f 100644 > --- a/src/include/rados/librados.h > +++ b/src/include/rados/librados.h > @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ extern "C" { > #endif > > #define LIBRADOS_VER_MAJOR 0 > -#define LIBRADOS_VER_MINOR 44 > +#define LIBRADOS_VER_MINOR 48 > #define LIBRADOS_VER_EXTRA 0 > > #define LIBRADOS_VERSION(maj, min, extra) ((maj << 16) + (min << 8) + extra) > -- > 1.7.9.5 > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org (mailto:majordomo@vger.kernel.org) > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wed, 4 Jul 2012, Gregory Farnum wrote: > Hmmm ÿÿ we generally try to modify these versions when the API changes, > not on every sprint. It looks to me like Sage added one function in 0.45 > where we maybe should have bumped it, but that was a long time ago and > at this point we should maybe just eat it? Yeah, I went ahead and applied this to stable (argonaut) since it's as good a reference point as any. Moving forward, we should try to sync this up with API changes as they happen. Hmm, like that assert ObjectOperation that just went into master... sage
On 07/04/2012 06:33 PM, Sage Weil wrote: > On Wed, 4 Jul 2012, Gregory Farnum wrote: >> Hmmm ÿÿ we generally try to modify these versions when the API changes, >> not on every sprint. It looks to me like Sage added one function in 0.45 >> where we maybe should have bumped it, but that was a long time ago and >> at this point we should maybe just eat it? > > Yeah, I went ahead and applied this to stable (argonaut) since it's as > good a reference point as any. Moving forward, we should try to sync > this up with API changes as they happen. Hmm, like that assert > ObjectOperation that just went into master... That was my reasoning. I compiled phprados against 0.48 and saw that librados was reporting 0.44 as version. That could confuse users and they might think they still have an old library in place. Imho the version numbering should be totally different from Ceph if you only want to bump the version on an API change. Wido > > sage > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Sage Weil <sage@inktank.com> wrote: > On Wed, 4 Jul 2012, Gregory Farnum wrote: >> Hmmm ÿÿ we generally try to modify these versions when the API changes, >> not on every sprint. It looks to me like Sage added one function in 0.45 >> where we maybe should have bumped it, but that was a long time ago and >> at this point we should maybe just eat it? > > Yeah, I went ahead and applied this to stable (argonaut) since it's as > good a reference point as any. Moving forward, we should try to sync > this up with API changes as they happen. Hmm, like that assert > ObjectOperation that just went into master... Yep, should probably bump it to .49 then! (Since that's the version it will be part of, and nobody will get confused and try to bump it again before that release.) On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Wido den Hollander <wido@widodh.nl> wrote: > That was my reasoning. I compiled phprados against 0.48 and saw that > librados was reporting 0.44 as version. > > That could confuse users and they might think they still have an old library > in place. > > Imho the version numbering should be totally different from Ceph if you only > want to bump the version on an API change. Well, the problem with bumping it on every Ceph version is that it becomes a lot harder for tools to sync up to a known version of the API. Perhaps we should have divorced it from the Ceph versioning completely, but I don't know if we can still do that in a reasonable way or not. :/ -Greg -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 07/06/2012 12:33 AM, Gregory Farnum wrote: > On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Sage Weil <sage@inktank.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 4 Jul 2012, Gregory Farnum wrote: >>> Hmmm ÿÿ we generally try to modify these versions when the API changes, >>> not on every sprint. It looks to me like Sage added one function in 0.45 >>> where we maybe should have bumped it, but that was a long time ago and >>> at this point we should maybe just eat it? >> >> Yeah, I went ahead and applied this to stable (argonaut) since it's as >> good a reference point as any. Moving forward, we should try to sync >> this up with API changes as they happen. Hmm, like that assert >> ObjectOperation that just went into master... > > Yep, should probably bump it to .49 then! (Since that's the version it > will be part of, and nobody will get confused and try to bump it again > before that release.) > > > On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Wido den Hollander <wido@widodh.nl> wrote: >> That was my reasoning. I compiled phprados against 0.48 and saw that >> librados was reporting 0.44 as version. >> >> That could confuse users and they might think they still have an old library >> in place. >> >> Imho the version numbering should be totally different from Ceph if you only >> want to bump the version on an API change. > > Well, the problem with bumping it on every Ceph version is that it > becomes a lot harder for tools to sync up to a known version of the > API. Perhaps we should have divorced it from the Ceph versioning > completely, but I don't know if we can still do that in a reasonable > way or not. :/ You could always say: 0.48 was the "stable" release, from here on we are only going to bump the librados version if any API change happends. Sent out an e-mail on the devel list and write a blogpost? I don't think we have a lot of developers using native librados at the moment. Wido > -Greg > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/src/include/rados/librados.h b/src/include/rados/librados.h index 9f723f7..4870b0f 100644 --- a/src/include/rados/librados.h +++ b/src/include/rados/librados.h @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ extern "C" { #endif #define LIBRADOS_VER_MAJOR 0 -#define LIBRADOS_VER_MINOR 44 +#define LIBRADOS_VER_MINOR 48 #define LIBRADOS_VER_EXTRA 0 #define LIBRADOS_VERSION(maj, min, extra) ((maj << 16) + (min << 8) + extra)
Signed-off-by: Wido den Hollander <wido@widodh.nl> --- src/include/rados/librados.h | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)