[xwiki-devs] [VOTE] New database version numbering
Hi Devs, Last database migrator is very old now, it was on revision 15428 of our SVN repository. The rules at that time was to use the revision number of the SVN commit for the database version. So our database is currently in version 15428. Since we have no more revision number in Git, and that the database version should be an integer, we need to vote a new convention: A) continue from where we are, incrementing by one, so next version will be 15428 B) use 16000, or another round number for next revision and increments by one for next version C) use a mix with the current XWiki version, so next will be 32000, and we have room for 1000 versions during the 3.2 releases. Personally, since database changes are really rare, since we were already jumping, and since there is plenty of room for number, I prefer meaning full number and I prefer C. The major advantage is that the number is in the database, so if you have a db dump, you may quickly know what is the oldest version this dump is compatible with without needing some reference list. So my +1 for C. -- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO eGuilde sarl - CTO
+1 for C On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Denis Gervalle <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Devs,
Last database migrator is very old now, it was on revision 15428 of our SVN repository. The rules at that time was to use the revision number of the SVN commit for the database version. So our database is currently in version 15428.
Since we have no more revision number in Git, and that the database version should be an integer, we need to vote a new convention:
A) continue from where we are, incrementing by one, so next version will be 15428
B) use 16000, or another round number for next revision and increments by one for next version
C) use a mix with the current XWiki version, so next will be 32000, and we have room for 1000 versions during the 3.2 releases.
Personally, since database changes are really rare, since we were already jumping, and since there is plenty of room for number, I prefer meaning full number and I prefer C. The major advantage is that the number is in the database, so if you have a db dump, you may quickly know what is the oldest version this dump is compatible with without needing some reference list.
So my +1 for C.
-- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO eGuilde sarl - CTO _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Thomas Mortagne
On 09/16/2011 10:04 AM, Denis Gervalle wrote:
Hi Devs,
Last database migrator is very old now, it was on revision 15428 of our SVN repository. The rules at that time was to use the revision number of the SVN commit for the database version. So our database is currently in version 15428.
Since we have no more revision number in Git, and that the database version should be an integer, we need to vote a new convention:
A) continue from where we are, incrementing by one, so next version will be 15428
B) use 16000, or another round number for next revision and increments by one for next version
C) use a mix with the current XWiki version, so next will be 32000, and we have room for 1000 versions during the 3.2 releases.
D) Count the number of git commits on the trunk, with: git log --oneline | wc -l This would give a number equivalent to the SVN revision number.
Personally, since database changes are really rare, since we were already jumping, and since there is plenty of room for number, I prefer meaning full number and I prefer C. The major advantage is that the number is in the database, so if you have a db dump, you may quickly know what is the oldest version this dump is compatible with without needing some reference list.
So my +1 for C.
I prefer to use something more stable, and C) looks like the better option for me as well. -- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
+1 for C Thanks, Marius On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Denis Gervalle <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Devs,
Last database migrator is very old now, it was on revision 15428 of our SVN repository. The rules at that time was to use the revision number of the SVN commit for the database version. So our database is currently in version 15428.
Since we have no more revision number in Git, and that the database version should be an integer, we need to vote a new convention:
A) continue from where we are, incrementing by one, so next version will be 15428
B) use 16000, or another round number for next revision and increments by one for next version
C) use a mix with the current XWiki version, so next will be 32000, and we have room for 1000 versions during the 3.2 releases.
Personally, since database changes are really rare, since we were already jumping, and since there is plenty of room for number, I prefer meaning full number and I prefer C. The major advantage is that the number is in the database, so if you have a db dump, you may quickly know what is the oldest version this dump is compatible with without needing some reference list.
So my +1 for C.
-- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO eGuilde sarl - CTO _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
participants (4)
-
Denis Gervalle -
Marius Dumitru Florea -
Sergiu Dumitriu -
Thomas Mortagne