xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ANNOUNCE] xfsprogs v3.2.0-alpha2

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] xfsprogs v3.2.0-alpha2
From: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 16:43:54 -0600
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Rich Johnston <rjohnston@xxxxxxx>, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20131203221714.GY10988@dastard>
References: <5293A699.20908@xxxxxxx> <20131128104002.GC26927@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20131128211858.GR10988@dastard> <20131129080538.GA31310@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20131203221714.GY10988@dastard>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 09:17:14AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> 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?

IIRC last time we discussed this I expressed a preference for focussing
on the 3.2.0 release, but did not object to a 3.1.12 either.  I think
Eric followed up and asked if Christoph had specific concerns that
should prompt a 3.1.12 release.  Now I think it's probably just best to
focus on the xfs_repair bits for 3.2.0.

-Ben

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