[libvirt] ANNOUNCE: Stable release libvirt-0.9.11.2
Okay, I screwed up the tarball for the first stable release, due to not building it from a fresh checkout :/ No changes for this one except a version bump and dist rebuild. This release can be downloaded at: http://libvirt.org/sources/libvirt-0.9.11.2.tar.gz Thanks, Cole
On 27/04/2012, at 8:04 AM, Cole Robinson wrote:
Okay, I screwed up the tarball for the first stable release, due to not building it from a fresh checkout :/ No changes for this one except a version bump and dist rebuild.
This release can be downloaded at:
Should there be entries for 0.9.11.1 and 0.9.11.2 on the News page? http://libvirt.org/news.html + Justin
Thanks, Cole
_______________________________________________ Libvirt-announce mailing list Libvirt-announce@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvirt-announce
-- Aeolus Community Manager http://www.aeolusproject.org
Okay, I screwed up the tarball for the first stable release, due to not building it from a fresh checkout :/ No changes for this one except a version bump and dist rebuild.
This release can be downloaded at:
http://libvirt.org/sources/libvirt-0.9.11.2.tar.gz
Thanks, Cole
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
Is there any particular reason that the project is using the same naming convention for stable releases? It appears to be a minor revision update from the standard release cycle. From an outsiders prospective, I don't know how anyone would think that 0.9.11.2 is not a standard update from 0.9.11, as there is no distinction in either the name from the distributed file, or documentation (unless I missed it denoted specifically on libvirt.org). Would there be any objection to using a distribution file name libvirt-stable-0.9.11.2.tar.gz ? To me, it is confusing, but that is just my opinion. Thanks, Jason
Okay, I screwed up the tarball for the first stable release, due to not building it from a fresh checkout :/ No changes for this one except a version bump and dist rebuild.
This release can be downloaded at:
http://libvirt.org/sources/libvirt-0.9.11.2.tar.gz
Thanks, Cole
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
Is there any particular reason that the project is using the same naming convention for stable releases? It appears to be a minor revision update from the standard release cycle. From an outsiders prospective, I don't know how anyone would think that 0.9.11.2 is not a standard update from 0.9.11, as there is no distinction in either the name from the distributed file, or documentation (unless I missed it denoted specifically on libvirt.org).
Would there be any objection to using a distribution file name libvirt-stable-0.9.11.2.tar.gz ?
To me, it is confusing, but that is just my opinion.
Thanks, Jason
Additionally, it may be beneficial to have a different download path, as well for the stable releases. For example: For standard releases: (ftp|http)://libvirt.org/libvirt/ For stable releases: (ftp|http)://libvirt.org/libvirt/stable/ And then document this on the the website, if it hasn't already been. Thanks, again. Jason
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 08:35:19PM -0700, Jason Helfman wrote:
Okay, I screwed up the tarball for the first stable release, due to not building it from a fresh checkout :/ No changes for this one except a version bump and dist rebuild.
This release can be downloaded at:
http://libvirt.org/sources/libvirt-0.9.11.2.tar.gz
Thanks, Cole
Is there any particular reason that the project is using the same naming convention for stable releases? It appears to be a minor revision update from the standard release cycle. From an outsiders prospective, I don't know how anyone would think that 0.9.11.2 is not a standard update from 0.9.11, as there is no distinction in either the name from the distributed file, or documentation (unless I missed it denoted specifically on libvirt.org).
Would there be any objection to using a distribution file name libvirt-stable-0.9.11.2.tar.gz ?
To me, it is confusing, but that is just my opinion.
Actually to be honest I think we should actually call these 'long term support' or 'maintenance' releases, since we generally consider *all* our releases to be stable releases. The distinction is really that the traditional releases may introduce new features, where as these new micro releases are strictly bug fix only. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 10:35 PM, Jason Helfman <jhelfman@e-e.com> wrote:
Okay, I screwed up the tarball for the first stable release, due to not building it from a fresh checkout :/ No changes for this one except a version bump and dist rebuild.
This release can be downloaded at:
http://libvirt.org/sources/libvirt-0.9.11.2.tar.gz
Thanks, Cole
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
Is there any particular reason that the project is using the same naming convention for stable releases? It appears to be a minor revision update from the standard release cycle. From an outsiders prospective, I don't know how anyone would think that 0.9.11.2 is not a standard update from 0.9.11, as there is no distinction in either the name from the distributed file, or documentation (unless I missed it denoted specifically on libvirt.org).
Would there be any objection to using a distribution file name libvirt-stable-0.9.11.2.tar.gz ?
To me, it is confusing, but that is just my opinion.
Thanks, Jason
Don't change the tarball name like that. That would just plain suck and be different than how 99% of projects out there do things. -- Doug Goldstein
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 01:38:27PM -0500, Doug Goldstein thus spake:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 10:35 PM, Jason Helfman <jhelfman@e-e.com> wrote:
Okay, I screwed up the tarball for the first stable release, due to not building it from a fresh checkout :/ No changes for this one except a version bump and dist rebuild.
This release can be downloaded at:
http://libvirt.org/sources/libvirt-0.9.11.2.tar.gz
Thanks, Cole
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
Is there any particular reason that the project is using the same naming convention for stable releases? It appears to be a minor revision update from the standard release cycle. From an outsiders prospective, I don't know how anyone would think that 0.9.11.2 is not a standard update from 0.9.11, as there is no distinction in either the name from the distributed file, or documentation (unless I missed it denoted specifically on libvirt.org).
Would there be any objection to using a distribution file name libvirt-stable-0.9.11.2.tar.gz ?
To me, it is confusing, but that is just my opinion.
Thanks, Jason
Don't change the tarball name like that. That would just plain suck and be different than how 99% of projects out there do things.
Ok, but having the same download path is just as confusing, as it looks like an update to 0.9.11, when it is a different release. Thanks, Jason -- Jason Helfman System Administrator experts-exchange.com http://www.experts-exchange.com/M_4830110.html E4AD 7CF1 1396 27F6 79DD 4342 5E92 AD66 8C8C FBA5
On 04/30/2012 12:43 PM, Jason Helfman wrote:
Is there any particular reason that the project is using the same naming convention for stable releases? It appears to be a minor revision update from the standard release cycle. From an outsiders prospective, I don't know how anyone would think that 0.9.11.2 is not a standard update from 0.9.11, as there is no distinction in either the name from the distributed file, or documentation (unless I missed it denoted specifically on libvirt.org).
Would there be any objection to using a distribution file name libvirt-stable-0.9.11.2.tar.gz ?
To me, it is confusing, but that is just my opinion.
Thanks, Jason
Don't change the tarball name like that. That would just plain suck and be different than how 99% of projects out there do things.
Ok, but having the same download path is just as confusing, as it looks like an update to 0.9.11, when it is a different release.
But for all intents and purposes, it IS an update to 0.9.11 - it is 0.9.11 plus backported patches that you would otherwise get in 0.9.12, but where 0.9.12 adds features. -- Eric Blake eblake@redhat.com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:56:05PM -0600, Eric Blake thus spake:
On 04/30/2012 12:43 PM, Jason Helfman wrote:
Is there any particular reason that the project is using the same naming convention for stable releases? It appears to be a minor revision update from the standard release cycle. From an outsiders prospective, I don't know how anyone would think that 0.9.11.2 is not a standard update from 0.9.11, as there is no distinction in either the name from the distributed file, or documentation (unless I missed it denoted specifically on libvirt.org).
Would there be any objection to using a distribution file name libvirt-stable-0.9.11.2.tar.gz ?
To me, it is confusing, but that is just my opinion.
Thanks, Jason
Don't change the tarball name like that. That would just plain suck and be different than how 99% of projects out there do things.
Ok, but having the same download path is just as confusing, as it looks like an update to 0.9.11, when it is a different release.
But for all intents and purposes, it IS an update to 0.9.11 - it is 0.9.11 plus backported patches that you would otherwise get in 0.9.12, but where 0.9.12 adds features.
Ok, I see. I was under the impression that these release were going to follow a release cycle of RedHat, and therefore wouldn't be changing that much, or get too many updates. - -jgh - -- Jason Helfman System Administrator experts-exchange.com http://www.experts-exchange.com/M_4830110.html E4AD 7CF1 1396 27F6 79DD 4342 5E92 AD66 8C8C FBA5 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iF4EAREIAAYFAk+e4T0ACgkQXpKtZoyM+6XyDQD9EUfHoC3KLGZ5TNc1HmqdOEJC pG5TyCM7lkEG0WAwFvkA/jcpBeeXRH6NIV6yDFSyedObqppjm5jEV4oCwy7sIsF8 =ksh7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:56:05PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
On 04/30/2012 12:43 PM, Jason Helfman wrote:
Ok, but having the same download path is just as confusing, as it looks like an update to 0.9.11, when it is a different release.
But for all intents and purposes, it IS an update to 0.9.11 - it is 0.9.11 plus backported patches that you would otherwise get in 0.9.12, but where 0.9.12 adds features.
Agreed, to me having it in a separate directory is confusing, it took me 5 minutes to find the tarball on the download page, if I want to switch from libvirt 0.9.11 to 0.9.11.3 in jhbuild I have to change the download path while it's supposed to be a minor bugfix release, ... Christophe
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 11:43:32AM -0700, Jason Helfman wrote:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 01:38:27PM -0500, Doug Goldstein thus spake:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 10:35 PM, Jason Helfman <jhelfman@e-e.com> wrote:
Okay, I screwed up the tarball for the first stable release, due to not building it from a fresh checkout :/ No changes for this one except a version bump and dist rebuild.
This release can be downloaded at:
Now http://libvirt.org/sources/stable_updates/libvirt-0.9.11.2.tar.gz
Cole
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
Is there any particular reason that the project is using the same naming convention for stable releases? It appears to be a minor revision update from the standard release cycle. From an outsiders prospective, I don't know how anyone would think that 0.9.11.2 is not a standard update from 0.9.11, as there is no distinction in either the name from the distributed file, or documentation (unless I missed it denoted specifically on libvirt.org).
Would there be any objection to using a distribution file name libvirt-stable-0.9.11.2.tar.gz ?
To me, it is confusing, but that is just my opinion.
Thanks, Jason
Don't change the tarball name like that. That would just plain suck and be different than how 99% of projects out there do things.
Ok, but having the same download path is just as confusing, as it looks like an update to 0.9.11, when it is a different release.
Okay, I created a stable_updates subdirectory on the download area (Cole you own it !) and moved the 3 existing releases there. I think that: - avoid confusion with usual releases - makes clear that they are updates - remove the need to change the names or releases i.e. it resolves the confusion in the simplest way and allow to point to the exact location for each content. Cole, would you mind updating the docs to point to that new sub-directory ? thanks, Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ daniel@veillard.com | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ http://veillard.com/ | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/
On May 1, 2012, at 10:19 PM, Daniel Veillard <veillard@redhat.com> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 11:43:32AM -0700, Jason Helfman wrote:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 01:38:27PM -0500, Doug Goldstein thus spake:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 10:35 PM, Jason Helfman <jhelfman@e-e.com> wrote:
Okay, I screwed up the tarball for the first stable release, due to not building it from a fresh checkout :/ No changes for this one except a version bump and dist rebuild.
This release can be downloaded at:
Now http://libvirt.org/sources/stable_updates/libvirt-0.9.11.2.tar.gz
Cole
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
Is there any particular reason that the project is using the same naming convention for stable releases? It appears to be a minor revision update from the standard release cycle. From an outsiders prospective, I don't know how anyone would think that 0.9.11.2 is not a standard update from 0.9.11, as there is no distinction in either the name from the distributed file, or documentation (unless I missed it denoted specifically on libvirt.org).
Would there be any objection to using a distribution file name libvirt-stable-0.9.11.2.tar.gz ?
To me, it is confusing, but that is just my opinion.
Thanks, Jason
Don't change the tarball name like that. That would just plain suck and be different than how 99% of projects out there do things.
Ok, but having the same download path is just as confusing, as it looks like an update to 0.9.11, when it is a different release.
Okay, I created a stable_updates subdirectory on the download area (Cole you own it !) and moved the 3 existing releases there. I think that: - avoid confusion with usual releases - makes clear that they are updates - remove the need to change the names or releases i.e. it resolves the confusion in the simplest way and allow to point to the exact location for each content.
Cole, would you mind updating the docs to point to that new sub-directory ?
thanks,
Daniel
Speaking as a distro package maintainer this kind of sucks since this is a special case but if 0.9.11.x confuses people then so be it. The same people must still be struggling with Linux being 3.x.y instead of 2.6.x.y for stable releases. Can we expect the same behavior for libxml as well then?
On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 01:22:37AM -0500, Doug Goldstein wrote:
On May 1, 2012, at 10:19 PM, Daniel Veillard <veillard@redhat.com> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 11:43:32AM -0700, Jason Helfman wrote:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 01:38:27PM -0500, Doug Goldstein thus spake:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 10:35 PM, Jason Helfman <jhelfman@e-e.com> wrote: Don't change the tarball name like that. That would just plain suck and be different than how 99% of projects out there do things.
Ok, but having the same download path is just as confusing, as it looks like an update to 0.9.11, when it is a different release.
Okay, I created a stable_updates subdirectory on the download area (Cole you own it !) and moved the 3 existing releases there. I think that: - avoid confusion with usual releases - makes clear that they are updates - remove the need to change the names or releases i.e. it resolves the confusion in the simplest way and allow to point to the exact location for each content.
Cole, would you mind updating the docs to point to that new sub-directory ?
thanks,
Daniel
Speaking as a distro package maintainer this kind of sucks since this is a special case but if 0.9.11.x confuses people then so be it.
I think we need to separate those maintainance releases as they are not made using the usual upstream process. It's in a sense arbitrary based on Fedora schedule and bug flow (though I would hope other distro chime in to suggest their prefered patches to backport in). Using a separate directory but keeping the name seems the simplest to me.
[...] Can we expect the same behavior for libxml as well then?
Nahh ... :-) there is far more workforce for libvirt than libxml2 I'm still struggling with the backlog needed to process before making a very needed release there, but that's completely different, the dynamic of the two projects have nothing in common :-) Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ daniel@veillard.com | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ http://veillard.com/ | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/
participants (9)
-
Christophe Fergeau -
Cole Robinson -
Daniel P. Berrange -
Daniel Veillard -
Doug Goldstein -
Doug Goldstein -
Eric Blake -
Jason Helfman -
Justin Clift