[Cluster-devel] STABLE cluster branch?!

[Cluster-devel] STABLE cluster branch?!

[Marc]

Hello,

are there any plans to merge the changes/fixes from the RHEL4
branch into STABLE? A new 1.0# release would be nice after that.


Marc

[Cluster-devel] STABLE cluster branch?!

[David Teigland]

On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 11:04:58AM +0200, Marc - A. Dahlhaus [ Administration | Westermann GmbH ] wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> are there any plans to merge the changes/fixes from the RHEL4
> branch into STABLE? A new 1.0# release would be nice after that.

We don't have any plans to do that, but would be willing to review and
commit patches to STABLE.  It's porting the STABLE kernel dirs to the
recent kernel.org releases that's the biggest chore.

Dave

[Cluster-devel] STABLE cluster branch?!

[Marc]

Am Dienstag, den 11.09.2007, 11:48 -0500 schrieb David Teigland:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 11:04:58AM +0200, Marc - A. Dahlhaus [ Administration | Westermann GmbH ] wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > are there any plans to merge the changes/fixes from the RHEL4
> > branch into STABLE? A new 1.0# release would be nice after that.
> 
> We don't have any plans to do that, but would be willing to review and
> commit patches to STABLE.  It's porting the STABLE kernel dirs to the
> recent kernel.org releases that's the biggest chore.

I found out that the fixes/changes from RHEL4 are also in HEAD after my
last post. We plan to migrate our 6TB GFS 6.1 volume to that tree. Is
the GFS 6.1 part in HEAD with the OpenAIS based DLM already "production
stable"?

I currently look through diffs between RHEL4 and STABLE of the
gfs{,-kernel} subdirs and try to get some patches up.


Thank you for your quick reply,

Marc

[Cluster-devel] STABLE cluster branch?!

[David Teigland]

On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 12:12:00PM +0200, Marc - A. Dahlhaus [ Administration | Westermann GmbH ] wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 11.09.2007, 11:48 -0500 schrieb David Teigland:
> > On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 11:04:58AM +0200, Marc - A. Dahlhaus [ Administration | Westermann GmbH ] wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > > 
> > > are there any plans to merge the changes/fixes from the RHEL4
> > > branch into STABLE? A new 1.0# release would be nice after that.
> > 
> > We don't have any plans to do that, but would be willing to review and
> > commit patches to STABLE.  It's porting the STABLE kernel dirs to the
> > recent kernel.org releases that's the biggest chore.
> 
> I found out that the fixes/changes from RHEL4 are also in HEAD after my
> last post. We plan to migrate our 6TB GFS 6.1 volume to that tree. Is
> the GFS 6.1 part in HEAD with the OpenAIS based DLM already "production
> stable"?

Yes, HEAD is about the same as the RHEL5 branch.  HEAD follows the latest
kernel.org kernels, but the RHEL5 branch follows the rhel5 kernel.  So,
pick the HEAD or RHEL5 branch depending on the kind of kernel you'd like.

An alternative to using HEAD is to use the cluster-2.xx.yy tarballs which
are snapshots from HEAD at more stable points in time.  Another difficulty
with using HEAD directly is that it sometimes (like now) requires kernel
patches that haven't made it upstream beyond the gfs2 git tree.

Dave

[Cluster-devel] STABLE cluster branch?!

[Marc]

Am Mittwoch, den 12.09.2007, 09:05 -0500 schrieb David Teigland:
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 12:12:00PM +0200, Marc - A. Dahlhaus [ Administration | Westermann GmbH ] wrote:
> > Am Dienstag, den 11.09.2007, 11:48 -0500 schrieb David Teigland:
> > > On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 11:04:58AM +0200, Marc - A. Dahlhaus [ Administration | Westermann GmbH ] wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > > 
> > > > are there any plans to merge the changes/fixes from the RHEL4
> > > > branch into STABLE? A new 1.0# release would be nice after that.
> > > 
> > > We don't have any plans to do that, but would be willing to review and
> > > commit patches to STABLE.  It's porting the STABLE kernel dirs to the
> > > recent kernel.org releases that's the biggest chore.
> > 
> > I found out that the fixes/changes from RHEL4 are also in HEAD after my
> > last post. We plan to migrate our 6TB GFS 6.1 volume to that tree. Is
> > the GFS 6.1 part in HEAD with the OpenAIS based DLM already "production
> > stable"?
> 
> Yes, HEAD is about the same as the RHEL5 branch.  HEAD follows the latest
> kernel.org kernels, but the RHEL5 branch follows the rhel5 kernel.  So,
> pick the HEAD or RHEL5 branch depending on the kind of kernel you'd like.

We use 1.04.00 at the moment and there was no glock_purge flag in it so
i checked the stable branch and found nothing. That HEAD and RHEL5 both
have the same "patchlevel" and only differ on the followed kernel
version was the reason for asking if this could be also made for RHEL4
and STABLE...

> An alternative to using HEAD is to use the cluster-2.xx.yy tarballs which
> are snapshots from HEAD at more stable points in time.  Another difficulty
> with using HEAD directly is that it sometimes (like now) requires kernel
> patches that haven't made it upstream beyond the gfs2 git tree.

We'll wait for the 2.6.23 release before we migrate to 2.01.00.

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?


Marc

[Cluster-devel] STABLE cluster branch?!

[David Teigland]

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