[OpenAFS] OpenAFS and windows/unix versioning

Garance A Drosehn drosih@rpi.edu
Wed, 07 May 2014 13:07:48 -0400

> On May 6, 2014 6:05:03 PM Andrew Deason <adeason@sinenomine.net> wrote:
>> Summary: What version numbers would you like for Windows and Unix
>> releases in the future? Some options are described below.

On 7 May 2014, at 10:13, Dave B. wrote:
> One of our main thoughts is that the version numbers should be
> indicative of client/server compatibility.

Unified versions would be best, but I can see where that runs into
practical difficulties.  The project hasn't had unified versions for
quite awhile now, and that has not been much of a problem for my site.

It would be nice to have some scheme which makes it easier to compare
versions across platforms.  Not quite in the sense of client/server
compatibility, but in the sense of easily stating what capabilities
are in the clients which connect to some server.  A cell administrator
might want to make a decision (or announcement) based on the
capabilities of "the average client" which connects, for instance.

How about always including a 'u' or a 'w' in the major version number?
  [hrm.  those look too much alike, so maybe use different letters]
So version 14u.1.2 would be in the releases recommended for unix, and
14w.1.2 would be in the releases recommended for windows.  The numbers
after the 'u' or 'w' would not have to be in lock-step, so '.1.2' in
one line of releases isn't necessarily related to '.1.2' in the other
set.  But both lines might jump to a '.2.0' release to signify some
important change (such as a critical security fix).

This is just a suggestion, and I don't know if it runs into practical
issues on some platforms.  I do not feel strongly about changing the
way versions have been handled.

Garance Alistair Drosehn                =     drosih@rpi.edu
Senior Systems Programmer               or   gad@FreeBSD.org
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute;             Troy, NY;  USA