On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:05:38AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 08:18:58AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 02:40:02AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 01:35:53PM -0600, Rich Johnston wrote:
> > > > Alpha version 3.2.0-alpha2 of xfsprogs has been released.
> > >
> > > So what issues keep us issueing alpha release instead of making a proper
> > > .0 release?
> >
> > There's still things to fix in xfs_repair before we do a full
> > release. Run xfs/291 recently?
>
> Works fine for me on v4 super blocks, which is what I mostly care about
> for now as that's what is in the field. And we haven't sent fixed
> for our existing installed base out for over 6 month now.
[ sorry for taking so long to reply - I missed this email, so
thatnks to Eric for pointing it out ot me this morning ]
I don't think that releasing with known deficiencies is a very good
idea. Perhaps it would be best to release a 3.1.12 with all the
relevant bugs fixes backported from the master branch to it?
I'm happy to create a 3.1-stable branch in the repository branched
off at the relevant point in the commit stream so we can host a 3.12
release, but I don't really have time to do any of the
identification and backporting of patches for such a release.
Hence, if you want to identify the commit to branch from and
provide a backport series of patches for a 3.12 release, then I
think we can do a stable release in short turn-around time. Would
that approach alleviating your concerns?
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
|