From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Loic Dachary Subject: should we prepare to release firefly v0.80.10 ? Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 12:12:09 +0200 Message-ID: <55362279.5060105@dachary.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="LURtCrlWdxPDohkfOscRMt3HhSBxuTkha" Return-path: Received: from mail2.dachary.org ([91.121.57.175]:49975 "EHLO smtp.dmail.dachary.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751160AbbDUKMN (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Apr 2015 06:12:13 -0400 Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Sage Weil Cc: Ceph Development , "Shu, Xinxin" This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --LURtCrlWdxPDohkfOscRMt3HhSBxuTkha Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Sage, The firefly branch has a number of fixes ( http://tracker.ceph.com/issues= /11090#Release-information ) and has been used for upgrade tests in the p= ast few weeks. A few other issues have been backported since and are bein= g tested in the integration branch ( http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11090= #teuthology-run-commitb91bbb434e6363a99a632cf3841f70f1f2549f79-integratio= n-branch-april-2015 ).=20 Do you think these changes deserve a firefly v0.80.10 release ? Should we= ask each lead for their approval ? Or is it better to keep backporting w= hat needs to be and wait a few weeks ? Cheers --=20 Lo=C3=AFc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre --LURtCrlWdxPDohkfOscRMt3HhSBxuTkha Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlU2InkACgkQ8dLMyEl6F23rKQCcCAyI2+ptikGH8PaUuCpd6bD0 TLcAn2Pd64a7IY7TwBwK1KGkVyWn2a6x =LPqA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --LURtCrlWdxPDohkfOscRMt3HhSBxuTkha--