On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 09:04:30AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> 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 have no strong preference... there are plenty of letters in the alphabet.
> > 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.
I do tend to agree with Eric that it is a good idea to do an alpha release
though. A configure option is an intersting idea too, but that's not how it's
coded today. Right now it's just a very loud warning when you create a
filesystem with crc=1. That's probably good enough.
How about we just do a 3.2 alpha now to get something out there, and if after
all the painting is finished and y'all still want a 4.0 bump, we'll do one. ;)
The major constraint being... we don't want to go backward.