xfsprogs: update version for 3.2.0-alpha1

xfsprogs: update version for 3.2.0-alpha1

[Ben Myers]

xfsprogs: update version for 3.2.0-alpha1

Update the VERSION and doc/CHANGES file for alpha release, 3.2.0-alpha1

Signed-off-by: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
Reviewed-by: Rich Johnston <rjohnston@sgi.com>

---
 VERSION      |    4 ++--
 configure.ac |    2 +-
 doc/CHANGES  |    4 ++++
 3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

Index: b/VERSION
===================================================================
--- a/VERSION	2013-09-16 15:50:29.544368912 -0500
+++ b/VERSION	2013-09-16 15:50:37.993732514 -0500
@@ -2,6 +2,6 @@
 # This file is used by configure to get version information
 #
 PKG_MAJOR=3
-PKG_MINOR=1
-PKG_REVISION=11
+PKG_MINOR=2
+PKG_REVISION=0-alpha1
 PKG_BUILD=1
Index: b/configure.ac
===================================================================
--- a/configure.ac	2013-09-16 15:54:14.394338104 -0500
+++ b/configure.ac	2013-09-16 15:54:37.154377546 -0500
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-AC_INIT([xfsprogs], [3.1.11])
+AC_INIT([xfsprogs], [3.2.0-alpha1])
 AC_PREREQ(2.50)
 AC_CONFIG_AUX_DIR([.])
 AC_CONFIG_MACRO_DIR([m4])
Index: b/doc/CHANGES
===================================================================
--- a/doc/CHANGES	2013-09-16 15:50:13.683773140 -0500
+++ b/doc/CHANGES	2013-09-16 15:55:58.379446313 -0500
@@ -1,3 +1,7 @@
+xfsprogs-3.2.0-alpha1 (16 Sep 2013)
+	- Alpha release for the purpose of testing the CRC feature during the
+	  v3.12 kernel -rc series.
+
 xfsprogs-3.1.11 (8 May 2013)
 	- Support for relative paths in xfs_quota thanks to Satoru Takeuchi.
 	- mkfs.xfs will always go into multidisk mode when filesystem

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

Re: xfsprogs: update version for 3.2.0-alpha1

[Eric Sandeen]

On 9/16/13 3:56 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
> xfsprogs: update version for 3.2.0-alpha1
> 
> Update the VERSION and doc/CHANGES file for alpha release, 3.2.0-alpha1
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
> Reviewed-by: Rich Johnston <rjohnston@sgi.com>

Seems fine to me - let's give Dave a chance to chime in too.

Thanks,
-Eric

> ---
>  VERSION      |    4 ++--
>  configure.ac |    2 +-
>  doc/CHANGES  |    4 ++++
>  3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> Index: b/VERSION
> ===================================================================
> --- a/VERSION	2013-09-16 15:50:29.544368912 -0500
> +++ b/VERSION	2013-09-16 15:50:37.993732514 -0500
> @@ -2,6 +2,6 @@
>  # This file is used by configure to get version information
>  #
>  PKG_MAJOR=3
> -PKG_MINOR=1
> -PKG_REVISION=11
> +PKG_MINOR=2
> +PKG_REVISION=0-alpha1
>  PKG_BUILD=1
> Index: b/configure.ac
> ===================================================================
> --- a/configure.ac	2013-09-16 15:54:14.394338104 -0500
> +++ b/configure.ac	2013-09-16 15:54:37.154377546 -0500
> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> -AC_INIT([xfsprogs], [3.1.11])
> +AC_INIT([xfsprogs], [3.2.0-alpha1])
>  AC_PREREQ(2.50)
>  AC_CONFIG_AUX_DIR([.])
>  AC_CONFIG_MACRO_DIR([m4])
> Index: b/doc/CHANGES
> ===================================================================
> --- a/doc/CHANGES	2013-09-16 15:50:13.683773140 -0500
> +++ b/doc/CHANGES	2013-09-16 15:55:58.379446313 -0500
> @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@
> +xfsprogs-3.2.0-alpha1 (16 Sep 2013)
> +	- Alpha release for the purpose of testing the CRC feature during the
> +	  v3.12 kernel -rc series.
> +
>  xfsprogs-3.1.11 (8 May 2013)
>  	- Support for relative paths in xfs_quota thanks to Satoru Takeuchi.
>  	- mkfs.xfs will always go into multidisk mode when filesystem
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@oss.sgi.com
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
> 

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

Re: xfsprogs: update version for 3.2.0-alpha1

[Dave Chinner]

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 03:56:37PM -0500, Ben Myers wrote:
> xfsprogs: update version for 3.2.0-alpha1

I'd say this is a major feature and infrastructure
update across the entire xfsprogs package, and in that case a
PKG_MAJOR bump is warranted, not PKG_MINOR.

i.e. We're shooting for a 4.0 release, not 3.2...

> 
> Update the VERSION and doc/CHANGES file for alpha release, 3.2.0-alpha1
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
> Reviewed-by: Rich Johnston <rjohnston@sgi.com>
> 
> ---
>  VERSION      |    4 ++--
>  configure.ac |    2 +-
>  doc/CHANGES  |    4 ++++
>  3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> Index: b/VERSION
> ===================================================================
> --- a/VERSION	2013-09-16 15:50:29.544368912 -0500
> +++ b/VERSION	2013-09-16 15:50:37.993732514 -0500
> @@ -2,6 +2,6 @@
>  # This file is used by configure to get version information
>  #
>  PKG_MAJOR=3
> -PKG_MINOR=1
> -PKG_REVISION=11
> +PKG_MINOR=2
> +PKG_REVISION=0-alpha1

To make it easy for packaging, 3.99.0 would probably fit better with
various distro package naming/numbering schemes...

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

Re: xfsprogs: update version for 3.2.0-alpha1

[Eric Sandeen]

On 9/16/13 5:38 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 03:56:37PM -0500, Ben Myers wrote:
>> xfsprogs: update version for 3.2.0-alpha1
> 
> I'd say this is a major feature and infrastructure
> update across the entire xfsprogs package, and in that case a
> PKG_MAJOR bump is warranted, not PKG_MINOR.
> 
> i.e. We're shooting for a 4.0 release, not 3.2...

Yeah good point.  I'm fine with 4.0.  It smells like Progress!  ;)

Dave also pointed out offline that maybe a 3.99 might be easier
on some package managers; for Fedora it's no problem, I can just
do some sort of 

4.0-0.1.alpha1
4.0-0.2.alpha2
4.0-0.3.alpha3
4.0-0.4.rc1
...
4.0-1

type progression.  But if people like 3.99 *shrug* let's not paint
this bike shed too many times.

-Eric

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

Re: xfsprogs: update version for 3.2.0-alpha1

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 08:38:55AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 03:56:37PM -0500, Ben Myers wrote:
> > xfsprogs: update version for 3.2.0-alpha1
> 
> I'd say this is a major feature and infrastructure
> update across the entire xfsprogs package, and in that case a
> PKG_MAJOR bump is warranted, not PKG_MINOR.
> 
> i.e. We're shooting for a 4.0 release, not 3.2...

I tend to disagree with the 4.0 bump.

2.0 was when the new xattr ABI was introduced, and 3.0 was when we
pulled fsr over from xfsdump to xfsprogs as well as drastically reducing
the amount of installed headers.

While the v5 support is a major internal change I think 3.2 would fit
better for this.

I'd also be tempted to just cut 3.2.0 instead of an alpha version - just
keep the v5 support experimental, maybe under a configure option.

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

Re: xfsprogs: update version for 3.2.0-alpha1

[Eric Sandeen]

On 9/23/13 7:26 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 08:38:55AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 03:56:37PM -0500, Ben Myers wrote:
>>> xfsprogs: update version for 3.2.0-alpha1
>>
>> I'd say this is a major feature and infrastructure
>> update across the entire xfsprogs package, and in that case a
>> PKG_MAJOR bump is warranted, not PKG_MINOR.
>>
>> i.e. We're shooting for a 4.0 release, not 3.2...
> 
> I tend to disagree with the 4.0 bump.
> 
> 2.0 was when the new xattr ABI was introduced, and 3.0 was when we
> pulled fsr over from xfsdump to xfsprogs as well as drastically reducing
> the amount of installed headers.
> 
> While the v5 support is a major internal change I think 3.2 would fit
> better for this.

*shrug* TBH I Don't care a whole lot.  Externally for old users in theory
it shouldn't be a big change.  But internally it's huge, and it enables
a new disk format, so ... well, I don't want to bikeshed it too much.

I'd mostly like to see _something_ w/ a version number on it so distros
can easily start to pick it up in testing repos.

> I'd also be tempted to just cut 3.2.0 instead of an alpha version - just
> keep the v5 support experimental, maybe under a configure option.

But so many changes are already made throughout the codebase, I think firing
off a point release with half-baked V5 support seems weird at this point.

IOWs, aside from the V5 work I'm not sure anything merits a point release.

-Eric

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

Re: xfsprogs: update version for 3.2.0-alpha1

[Ben Myers]

Hi Gents,

On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 09:04:30AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 9/23/13 7:26 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 08:38:55AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 03:56:37PM -0500, Ben Myers wrote:
> >>> xfsprogs: update version for 3.2.0-alpha1
> >>
> >> I'd say this is a major feature and infrastructure
> >> update across the entire xfsprogs package, and in that case a
> >> PKG_MAJOR bump is warranted, not PKG_MINOR.
> >>
> >> i.e. We're shooting for a 4.0 release, not 3.2...
> > 
> > I tend to disagree with the 4.0 bump.
> > 
> > 2.0 was when the new xattr ABI was introduced, and 3.0 was when we
> > pulled fsr over from xfsdump to xfsprogs as well as drastically reducing
> > the amount of installed headers.
> > 
> > While the v5 support is a major internal change I think 3.2 would fit
> > better for this.
> 
> *shrug* TBH I Don't care a whole lot.  Externally for old users in theory
> it shouldn't be a big change.  But internally it's huge, and it enables
> a new disk format, so ... well, I don't want to bikeshed it too much.
> 
> I'd mostly like to see _something_ w/ a version number on it so distros
> can easily start to pick it up in testing repos.

I have no strong preference... there are plenty of letters in the alphabet.
 
> > I'd also be tempted to just cut 3.2.0 instead of an alpha version - just
> > keep the v5 support experimental, maybe under a configure option.
> 
> But so many changes are already made throughout the codebase, I think firing
> off a point release with half-baked V5 support seems weird at this point.
> 
> IOWs, aside from the V5 work I'm not sure anything merits a point release.

I do tend to agree with Eric that it is a good idea to do an alpha release
though.  A configure option is an intersting idea too, but that's not how it's
coded today.  Right now it's just a very loud warning when you create a
filesystem with crc=1.  That's probably good enough.

How about we just do a 3.2 alpha now to get something out there, and if after
all the painting is finished and y'all still want a 4.0 bump, we'll do one.  ;)

The major constraint being... we don't want to go backward.

-Ben

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

Re: xfsprogs: update version for 3.2.0-alpha1

[Eric Sandeen]

On 9/23/13 10:07 AM, Ben Myers wrote:
> Hi Gents,
> 
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 09:04:30AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> On 9/23/13 7:26 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 08:38:55AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 03:56:37PM -0500, Ben Myers wrote:
>>>>> xfsprogs: update version for 3.2.0-alpha1
>>>>
>>>> I'd say this is a major feature and infrastructure
>>>> update across the entire xfsprogs package, and in that case a
>>>> PKG_MAJOR bump is warranted, not PKG_MINOR.
>>>>
>>>> i.e. We're shooting for a 4.0 release, not 3.2...
>>>
>>> I tend to disagree with the 4.0 bump.
>>>
>>> 2.0 was when the new xattr ABI was introduced, and 3.0 was when we
>>> pulled fsr over from xfsdump to xfsprogs as well as drastically reducing
>>> the amount of installed headers.
>>>
>>> While the v5 support is a major internal change I think 3.2 would fit
>>> better for this.
>>
>> *shrug* TBH I Don't care a whole lot.  Externally for old users in theory
>> it shouldn't be a big change.  But internally it's huge, and it enables
>> a new disk format, so ... well, I don't want to bikeshed it too much.
>>
>> I'd mostly like to see _something_ w/ a version number on it so distros
>> can easily start to pick it up in testing repos.
> 
> I have no strong preference... there are plenty of letters in the alphabet.
>  
>>> I'd also be tempted to just cut 3.2.0 instead of an alpha version - just
>>> keep the v5 support experimental, maybe under a configure option.
>>
>> But so many changes are already made throughout the codebase, I think firing
>> off a point release with half-baked V5 support seems weird at this point.
>>
>> IOWs, aside from the V5 work I'm not sure anything merits a point release.
> 
> I do tend to agree with Eric that it is a good idea to do an alpha release
> though.  A configure option is an intersting idea too, but that's not how it's
> coded today.  Right now it's just a very loud warning when you create a
> filesystem with crc=1.  That's probably good enough.
> 
> How about we just do a 3.2 alpha now to get something out there, and if after
> all the painting is finished and y'all still want a 4.0 bump, we'll do one.  ;)
> 
> The major constraint being... we don't want to go backward.

I was thinking the same thing.  There's not a lot of risk other than potential
oddities of i.e. 3.2.0-rc2 going to 4.0.0 w/ no 3.2.0 in between, but that's not really
going to break anything.

-Eric

> -Ben
> 

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs