[Top] [All Lists]

Re: projid32bit=1 default in xfsprogs-3.2.0

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: projid32bit=1 default in xfsprogs-3.2.0
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 17:59:31 -0500
Cc: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20131015224831.GZ4446@dastard>
References: <525C1C15.7020204@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20131014211659.GI5663@dastard> <20131014212347.GB1935@xxxxxxx> <525C6108.6010108@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20131015194609.GC32095@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20131015204342.GA24997@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20131015212214.GC1935@xxxxxxx> <20131015213110.GA5895@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20131015214910.GX10553@xxxxxxx> <525DBA50.5000202@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20131015224831.GZ4446@dastard>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
On 10/15/13 5:48 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 04:57:36PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> On 10/15/13 4:49 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
>>> Hey,
>>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 02:31:10PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 04:22:14PM -0500, Ben Myers wrote:
>>>>> The tags are out there:
>>>>> http://oss.sgi.com/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=xfs/cmds/xfsprogs.git;a=tags
>>>> I managed to somehow miss them.  Sorry!
>>> np
>>>>> That's an interesting idea.  We hadn't discussed a 3.1.12 release.  No
>>>>> particular objection to doing that, it's just that we didn't branch for 
>>>>> the
>>>>> v3.0.5->v3.1.0 set of releases.  Maybe it is better if we all focus on 
>>>>> 3.2.0.
>>>> With git you can easily branch from a past commit, e.g.:
>>>> hch@brick:~/work/xfsprogs$ git checkout -b release-3.1 v3.1.11
>>>> Switched to a new branch 'release-3.1'
>>> Yep.  If folks want a 3.1.12 we should certainly kick the idea around a bit.
>>> I'm just guessing that most would prefer to focus on a 3.2.0 in the near 
>>> term.
>>> Maybe I'm mistaken about that though.  ;)
>> I'm not super keen to divide the focus; I've already updated the distros I
>> care about to 3.2.0-alpha1, so I wouldn't go backwards to a 3.1.12.
> I'd prefer we focus on getting stuff reviewed and integrated into
> 3.2.0 more quickly than we are now.  At this point in the cycle, we
> really need the 3.2 branch and xfstests to be updated daily with the
> changes that were reviewed in the past 24 hours so that we can
> iterate test cycles with the latest fixes more easily.

Agreed, I'm sitting on things that I don't know if I need to resend or not.

I've offered it before, and I'll offer again: if it's a burden for SGI to
keep up with xfstests merging, we can help - but the delays are getting to
be problematic again in the current process.


> This will give us a clearer idea of the problems we still need to
> fix before the release can progress without everyone having to keep
> their own private trees up to date with what everyone else is
> changing/fixing...
> Cheers,
> Dave.

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