From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from agk.surrey.redhat.com (agk.surrey.redhat.com [172.16.10.74]) by pobox.surrey.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k3JGNNe3029420 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2006 17:23:23 +0100 Received: from agk by agk.surrey.redhat.com with local (Exim 4.34) id 1FWFSd-0006cE-Dh for linux-lvm@redhat.com; Wed, 19 Apr 2006 17:23:23 +0100 Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 17:23:23 +0100 From: Alasdair G Kergon Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] LVM2 release 2.02.03 / device-mapper 1.02.04 Message-ID: <20060419162323.GC24520@agk.surrey.redhat.com> References: <20060414214357.GE4521@agk.surrey.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Reply-To: LVM general discussion and development List-Id: LVM general discussion and development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: LVM general discussion and development On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 06:28:46AM +0700, Alexey Shinkin wrote: > And both are still "development" , not "stable" ? > What is criteria of "stability" and do you plan to release stable versions ? The labelling is like a 'release candidate' process: if no significant problems reveal themselves with a particular release after a reasonable amount of time, and I believe it is at least as 'stable' as the existing release labelled 'stable', I'll move the label forward. None of the lvm2 2.02 releases so far deserved that label - there was some problem or other with each of them. With the current release, I think we're quite close now. > And how stable are versions that included in RedHat/Fedora Core > distributions ? RHEL aims at stability and so takes bug fixes more quickly than it takes enhancements and other changes. Fedora tracks upstream development more closely. Alasdair -- agk@redhat.com