From: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
rjohnston@sgi.com, xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: xfsprogs: update version for 3.2.0-alpha1
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 10:07:27 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130923150727.GV10553@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <52404A6E.4070306@sandeen.net>
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-09-23 15:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-09-16 20:56 xfsprogs: update version for 3.2.0-alpha1 Ben Myers
2013-09-16 22:03 ` Eric Sandeen
2013-09-16 22:38 ` Dave Chinner
2013-09-18 21:35 ` Eric Sandeen
2013-09-23 12:26 ` Christoph Hellwig
2013-09-23 14:04 ` Eric Sandeen
2013-09-23 15:07 ` Ben Myers [this message]
2013-09-23 15:09 ` Eric Sandeen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130923150727.GV10553@sgi.com \
--to=bpm@sgi.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=rjohnston@sgi.com \
--cc=sandeen@sandeen.net \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox