From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB3167F55 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 16:17:24 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B33028F8035 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 14:17:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.129]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 1nN0RB5nsMYoWuDa for ; Tue, 03 Dec 2013 14:17:19 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 09:17:14 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] xfsprogs v3.2.0-alpha2 Message-ID: <20131203221714.GY10988@dastard> References: <5293A699.20908@sgi.com> <20131128104002.GC26927@infradead.org> <20131128211858.GR10988@dastard> <20131129080538.GA31310@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131129080538.GA31310@infradead.org> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Rich Johnston , xfs-oss On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:05:38AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 08:18:58AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 02:40:02AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 01:35:53PM -0600, Rich Johnston wrote: > > > > Alpha version 3.2.0-alpha2 of xfsprogs has been released. > > > > > > So what issues keep us issueing alpha release instead of making a proper > > > .0 release? > > > > There's still things to fix in xfs_repair before we do a full > > release. Run xfs/291 recently? > > Works fine for me on v4 super blocks, which is what I mostly care about > for now as that's what is in the field. And we haven't sent fixed > for our existing installed base out for over 6 month now. [ sorry for taking so long to reply - I missed this email, so thatnks to Eric for pointing it out ot me this morning ] I don't think that releasing with known deficiencies is a very good idea. Perhaps it would be best to release a 3.1.12 with all the relevant bugs fixes backported from the master branch to it? I'm happy to create a 3.1-stable branch in the repository branched off at the relevant point in the commit stream so we can host a 3.12 release, but I don't really have time to do any of the identification and backporting of patches for such a release. Hence, if you want to identify the commit to branch from and provide a backport series of patches for a 3.12 release, then I think we can do a stable release in short turn-around time. Would that approach alleviating your concerns? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs