From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christopher J. Morrone Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2015 13:58:11 -0700 Subject: [lustre-devel] DNE2 feature patch landing In-Reply-To: References: <1435865147.2548.26.camel@intel.com> Message-ID: <5595A5E3.2060201@llnl.gov> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org On 07/02/2015 01:46 PM, Simmons, James A. wrote: >> All, >> >> Last week a patch landed conflicting with the DNE2 project that was >> preparing to land for 2.8: >> http://wiki.lustre.org/Projects >> >> The DNE2 feature patches were rapidly re-based, re-reviewed and prepared >> again for landing. However, a unrelated test failure from the continuous >> integration environment has delayed the landing of these three patches >> beyond the feature freeze date of June 30th. >> >> We anticipate that it would only take an extra day or two to get the >> outstanding DNE2 patches landed and recommend that we extend the feature >> freeze for these to allow this OpenSFS-funded project to complete. We >> do not expect this to have a material affect on the 2.8 release date. >> >> I'm asking the list now for a couple of supporting community voices to >> endorse this request. > > We had this discussion at the last OpenSFS working group which we agreed > that the patch for LU-3534 should land after the feature freeze. Before the > merge conflict the patch did pass all maloo test and had the needed reviews. > The merge conflict was due to another change that landed that altered one > of the test in the test suite. So their is no C code change between versions of > the LU-3534 patch. The rest of the patches are fixes for bug so they fall into > the bug fixing phase. On the contract call today we encouraged Intel to have this conversation and make this decision more publicly. The LWG calls are only attended by a small fraction of the development community. I think it is important that we start being more open and transparent with the activities and decisions surrounding Lustre's master branch. So thanks, Richard for posting on lustre-devel. Since this feature has been developed under the old style of piecemeal landing rather than the new topic branch development style, I too agree that landing this after the feature freeze date is acceptable. Chris