Monty Taylor wrote: > [...] > An epoch, being a tool designed for package maintainers to solve package > maintainer problems, is not a tool designed to solve ease of > communication issues for regular users. Most regular users immediately > grasp that 2.0.0 > 1.0.0. Most regular users do NOT intuitively grasp > that 1!1.0.0 > 0!2.0.0 - nor why the heck there is a ! in the version. > > We're moving to semver versions to better align with understandable > version numbering as people regularly use it. Yes, this is going to > cause a short term grief for a set of people. However, it is a VERY > simple problem for those people to overcome, if it is actually a problem > for them at all. > > To be clear, since we have never published the servers to PyPI, it means > that there are the following ways in which people can install the servers: > > a) from the distros. Yes. this means that the distro packagers will have > to add an epoch in their packaging. Guess what? That's what they do and > why they have that tool at their disposal. > > b) from git. Not a problem. "git pull ; pip install -U ." will work no > matter what the version number is" > > c) from locally built distro packages. If they're also following > upstream packaging, no problem. If they're doing their own thing, then > they get to add an epoch line. > > d) in docker containers. Not a problem. Build a new container. > > e) in venvs. Not a problem. Build a new venv. > > f) from locally built packages that are created programatically and have > decided to base their versioning on a direct translation of the python > version string that also publish into a local distro package repository > from which deployments are run. Ok. Fair - this one will hurt. However, > I believe the sum-total of the list of that is "anvil" - so I'm pretty > sure that adding a quick "if version == blah" into the anvil code would > solve this. > > So when I say it's not an actual problem, but instead a pedantic > theoretical problem - this is what I mean. There are no real instances > where this is anything other than bikeshedding over the "right" way to > do things. > > Are there a few people who this will annoy? TOTALLY. Am I sorry about > that? TOTALLY. > > Do I think that we should introduce an epoch into our upstream version > numbering even though it will help close to zero people? Nope. I do not.
Amen, I wouldn't have better phrased it. I don't know of a single upstream that publishes source code tarballs versioned foobar-2!5.0.0.tar.gz and as release management PTL I don't intend to start. The version we ship is called 5.0.0. Epochs are there in downstream packaging systems to help computers understand that sometimes 5>2015, not for anyone else. So yes, it's a one-time pain point in a corner case use for the few things in OpenStack that have been versioned YYYY.SEQ -- but it's clearly outweighed by the ugliness of forever having to ship non-human-readable versions in tags and source code tarballs. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) __________________________________________________________________________ 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
