From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Teigland Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:27:40 -0500 Subject: [Cluster-devel] STABLE cluster branch?! In-Reply-To: <1189610290.24044.64.camel@marc> References: <1189501498.18475.23.camel@marc> <20070911164816.GC11432@redhat.com> <1189591920.29198.41.camel@marc> <20070912140521.GA1928@redhat.com> <1189610290.24044.64.camel@marc> Message-ID: <20070912152740.GA3406@redhat.com> List-Id: To: cluster-devel.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 05:18:10PM +0200, Marc - A. Dahlhaus [ Administration | Westermann GmbH ] wrote: > I think a separate branch which follows the last released vanilla kernel > tree for gfs2 could be useful while there is so much movement in HEAD. > Merging HEAD into that branch after each merge window on Linus tree > could minimize the needed manpower and the release of tarballs would > also require less time out of that branch. Adopters of the tarball could > get fixes from there too. Before gfs2 the STABLE branch was exactly that > or wasn't it? You have a good point, we've been talking about creating a STABLE2 branch that's equivalent to the RHEL5 branch except follows upstream kernels. (Same way the RHEL4/STABLE branches worked.) We're hoping to wait a while longer before doing that, though. A little more discipline about what's checked into HEAD will make HEAD as effective (for now) as STABLE2. Dave