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.