[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfsprogs: update version for 3.2.0-alpha1

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: xfsprogs: update version for 3.2.0-alpha1
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 09:04:30 -0500
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>, rjohnston@xxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20130923122623.GA2199@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20130916205637.GD1935@xxxxxxx> <20130916223855.GF19103@dastard> <20130923122623.GA2199@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
On 9/23/13 7:26 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 08:38:55AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 03:56:37PM -0500, Ben Myers wrote:
>>> xfsprogs: update version for 3.2.0-alpha1
>> I'd say this is a major feature and infrastructure
>> update across the entire xfsprogs package, and in that case a
>> PKG_MAJOR bump is warranted, not PKG_MINOR.
>> i.e. We're shooting for a 4.0 release, not 3.2...
> I tend to disagree with the 4.0 bump.
> 2.0 was when the new xattr ABI was introduced, and 3.0 was when we
> pulled fsr over from xfsdump to xfsprogs as well as drastically reducing
> the amount of installed headers.
> While the v5 support is a major internal change I think 3.2 would fit
> better for this.

*shrug* TBH I Don't care a whole lot.  Externally for old users in theory
it shouldn't be a big change.  But internally it's huge, and it enables
a new disk format, so ... well, I don't want to bikeshed it too much.

I'd mostly like to see _something_ w/ a version number on it so distros
can easily start to pick it up in testing repos.

> I'd also be tempted to just cut 3.2.0 instead of an alpha version - just
> keep the v5 support experimental, maybe under a configure option.

But so many changes are already made throughout the codebase, I think firing
off a point release with half-baked V5 support seems weird at this point.

IOWs, aside from the V5 work I'm not sure anything merits a point release.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>