On 02/10/2015 10:28 AM, Alexander Tivelkov wrote: > Hi folks, > > One of the key features that we are adding to Glance with the > introduction of Artifacts is the ability to have multiple versions of > the same object in the repository: this gives us the possibility to > query for the latest version of something, keep track on the changes > history, and build various continuous delivery solutions on top of > Artifact Repository. > > We need to determine the format and rules we will use to define, > increment and compare versions of artifacts in the repository. There > are two alternatives we have to choose from, and we are seeking advice > on this choice. > > First, there is Semantic Versioning specification, available at [1]. > It is a very generic spec, widely used and adopted in many areas of > software development. It is quite straightforward: 3 mandatory numeric > components for version number, plus optional string labels for > pre-release versions and build metadata. > > And then there is PEP-440 spec, which is a "recommended approach to > identifying versions and specifying dependencies when distributing > Python". It is a "pythonic" way to set versions of python packages, > including PIP version strings. > > Conceptually PEP-440 and Semantic Versioning are similar in purpose, > but slightly different in syntax. Notably, the count of version number > components and rules of version precedence resolution differ between > PEP-440 and SemVer. Unfortunately, the two version string formats are > not compatible, so we have to choose one or the other. > > According to my initial vision, the Artifact Repository should be as > generic as possible in terms of potential adoption. The artifacts were > never supposed to be python packages only, and even the projects which > will create and use these artifacts are not mandatory limited to be > pythonic, the developers of that projects may not be python > developers! So, I'd really wanted to avoid any python-specific > notations, such as PEP-440 for artifacts. > > I've put this vision into a spec [3] which also contains a proposal on > how to convert the semver-compatible version strings into the > comparable values which may be mapped to database types, so a database > table may be queried, ordered and filtered by the object version. > > So, we need some feedback on this topic. Would you prefer artifacts to > be versioned with SemVer or with PEP-440 notation? Are you interested > in having some generic utility which will map versions (in either > format) to database columns? If so, which version format would you > prefer? > > We are on a tight schedule here, as we want to begin landing > artifact-related code soon. So, I would appreciate your feedback > during this week: here in the ML or in the comments to [3] review.
Because you should have more things to look at: http://docs.openstack.org/developer/pbr/semver.html We've already done some work to try to reconcile the world of semver with the world of PEP440 over in PBR land. __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
