[tahoe-dev] Weekly Dev Chat notes from 2013-03-07

[Greg Troxel]

Zooko Wilcox-OHearn <zooko at leastauthority.com> writes:

> Then we briefly mentioned the possibility of switching from a
> "semantic versioning" style version number, to a YEAR.RELEASE_COUNT
> version number like Twisted does. So instead of Tahoe-LAFS v1.10, this
> might be Tahoe-LAFS v13.0. Then if there is another release in 2013,
> that would be Tahoe-LAFS v13.1. We also considered leaving it alone
> for the "v1.10" release, and switching styles for the next release.

To me, this seems like needless churn.  I don't think the current scheme
is broken.

> Currently we use the "1." in "Tahoe-LAFS v1.10" to mean that it has
> backward-compatibility with all of the stable Tahoe-LAFS releases
> since v1.0 (released March 25, 2008:
> https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/wiki/Doc#TheParadeofReleaseNotes
> ). I'm not sure that's accurate. While we have never deliberately
> violated that goal, and we are not aware of any change that we've made
> which would break that compatibility, on the other hand we don't have
> automated or manual testing of backwards compatibility.

The non-testing of compat is a valid issue, but I don't think changing
numbers actually helps.

> Anyway, I suspect that there aren't any users of Tahoe-LAFS versions
> older than 1.9.2:
> https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/wiki/OSPackages

I would expect to see at least some 1.7 if one checked all the users.
Just because a packging system updates doesn't update all the code out
there.  But I agree that it's unlikely there is significant usage of any
release that has been obsolete for 1.5 years.

It would be cool for someone to set up to run inter-node regression
tests of various versions.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://tahoe-lafs.org/pipermail/tahoe-dev/attachments/20130311/3c72cf3d/attachment.pgp>