Re: [Maria-developers] MariaDB Release Numbering
Colin Charles <colin@askmonty.org> writes:
On 25 Mar 2010, at 02:09, Daniel Bartholomew wrote:
If so, my thinking is that the first 5.2 release will be called "5.2.1" and then go up from there.
This is the only logical way forward
We can then say "5.2.1 branched from MySQL 5.x" (for example)
We've got to be clear where we've pulled things from, because some things might be fixed in later versions of MySQL. Also in case there are changes (i.e. that may affect folk upgrading), its really important to know where things are branched from
Its also good that we "deviate" from their numbering. Putting on a marketing hat, it does sound like we're doing well with a greater version number (ok, I don't necessarily believe this, but I was semi- convinced when I heard the explanation given to me by the marketing folk at MySQL - it helps CIOs think, maybe)
I don't want a marketing hat :) But from a technical point of view I just want to make it clear that there is no difference in this respect between MariaDB 5.1 and MariaDB 5.2. The only meaningful difference between 5.1 and 5.2 is that at some point we stopped adding features to 5.1 to make a stable release, and thus all additions that are not bugfixes are now called 5.2. But in terms of numbering from 1,2,3 or from corresponding MySQL versions, there is no difference. Any argument for one or the other numbering applies equally to both 5.1 and 5.2. The merging from MySQL is identical. So the consistent way would be to release 5.2.44, 5.2.45, ... (On the other hand there may be other reasons to prefer 5.2.1, 5.2.2, fine with me. We can't go back to MariaDB 5.1.1, but for MariaDB 5.2 we can choose). - Kristian.
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 3:47 AM, Kristian Nielsen <knielsen@knielsen-hq.org>wrote:
Colin Charles <colin@askmonty.org> writes:
On 25 Mar 2010, at 02:09, Daniel Bartholomew wrote:
If so, my thinking is that the first 5.2 release will be called "5.2.1" and then go up from there.
This is the only logical way forward
We can then say "5.2.1 branched from MySQL 5.x" (for example)
We've got to be clear where we've pulled things from, because some things might be fixed in later versions of MySQL. Also in case there are changes (i.e. that may affect folk upgrading), its really important to know where things are branched from
Its also good that we "deviate" from their numbering. Putting on a marketing hat, it does sound like we're doing well with a greater version number (ok, I don't necessarily believe this, but I was semi- convinced when I heard the explanation given to me by the marketing folk at MySQL - it helps CIOs think, maybe)
I don't want a marketing hat :)
But from a technical point of view I just want to make it clear that there is no difference in this respect between MariaDB 5.1 and MariaDB 5.2. The only meaningful difference between 5.1 and 5.2 is that at some point we stopped adding features to 5.1 to make a stable release, and thus all additions that are not bugfixes are now called 5.2.
But in terms of numbering from 1,2,3 or from corresponding MySQL versions, there is no difference. Any argument for one or the other numbering applies equally to both 5.1 and 5.2. The merging from MySQL is identical.
So the consistent way would be to release 5.2.44, 5.2.45, ...
(On the other hand there may be other reasons to prefer 5.2.1, 5.2.2, fine with me. We can't go back to MariaDB 5.1.1, but for MariaDB 5.2 we can choose).
- Kristian.
If we're always pulling from a mysql stable release and porting their features/patches why not always be a minor number above them? Say they release 5.2 ... we've added their patches from 5.2 but also added other community pieces, improvements and bug fixes...it seems to make sense to then release MariaDB 5.3. Staying one minor above seems meaningful because we have all 5.2 functionality of MySQL but extra patches and maybe more features from the community and it isn't confusing to me. What might be a bit confusing is when you start talking minor minor numbers like 5.2.1 vs 5.2.2. We could reserve the minor minor numbers for patch updates/fixes? I think Linus decided to abandon the even/odd stable/unstable game with Linux 2.6.x and from there they've been incrementing the minor minor number to indicate patch releases. CIO's would also probably hear...5.3 vs 5.2...then think, that's a no brainer! Let's choose MariaDB! :-) Just my two cents. Also, is there a better term than minor minor number to describe the three in 5.2.3 ?
"Adam M. Dutko" <dutko.adam@gmail.com> writes:
If we're always pulling from a mysql stable release and porting their features/patches why not always be a minor number above them?
Say they release 5.2 ... we've added their patches from 5.2 but also added
Ah, but the thing is, MySQL will never (as far as we know/guess) release 5.2. MySQL 5.2, 6.0, 5.4, they've all been officially cancelled! Next version currently is planned as MySQL 5.5. So we squeezed into the spare room :)
other community pieces, improvements and bug fixes...it seems to make sense to then release MariaDB 5.3. Staying one minor above seems meaningful because we have all 5.2 functionality of MySQL but extra patches and maybe more features from the community and it isn't confusing to me. What might be a bit confusing is when you start talking minor minor numbers like 5.2.1 vs 5.2.2. We could reserve the minor minor numbers for patch updates/fixes?
This idea is of course valid in spite of the above comment.
I think Linus decided to abandon the even/odd stable/unstable game with Linux 2.6.x and from there they've been incrementing the minor minor number to indicate patch releases.
Arguably, our current numbering is a hack, although not without its merit. It seems inevitable that sooner or later, if MariaDB and MySQL does not manage to converge, some completely separate version numbering will be needed to - Kristian.
Ah, but the thing is, MySQL will never (as far as we know/guess) release 5.2. MySQL 5.2, 6.0, 5.4, they've all been officially cancelled! Next version currently is planned as MySQL 5.5. So we squeezed into the spare room :)
Then why not move away from their versioning numbers but always make sure they're greater than 5 or 6? Almost like what Slackware did?
Arguably, our current numbering is a hack, although not without its merit. It seems inevitable that sooner or later, if MariaDB and MySQL does not manage to converge, some completely separate version numbering will be needed to
See above... :-)
participants (2)
-
Adam M. Dutko -
Kristian Nielsen