[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ANNOUNCE] xfsprogs v3.2.0-alpha2

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] xfsprogs v3.2.0-alpha2
From: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 16:01:16 -0600
Cc: Rich Johnston <rjohnston@xxxxxxx>, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20131204110023.GA3263@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <5293A699.20908@xxxxxxx> <20131128104002.GC26927@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20131128211858.GR10988@dastard> <20131129080538.GA31310@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20131203221714.GY10988@dastard> <20131203224354.GR1935@xxxxxxx> <20131204110023.GA3263@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 03:00:23AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 04:43:54PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> > 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.
> My concern is pretty simple: we have a big batch of minor and not so
> minor fixes that I want to get out to our users.  We've done releases
> about every 3 month for the last couple years, but we've not done any
> for 6 month by now.
> I have to admit I'm a bit out of the loop on the v5 repair work, but if
> Dave feels confident that he can get it done soon we should aim for a
> 3.2.0 release after that.  If not it's more than time to get a 3.1.12
> out and I'd be happy to do the work for it.

Sounds good to me.  Lets see how long Dave thinks the repair work will take and
base the decision upon that.


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