From: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Rich Johnston <rjohnston@sgi.com>, xfs-oss <xfs@oss.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] xfsprogs v3.2.0-alpha2
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 16:43:54 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131203224354.GR1935@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131203221714.GY10988@dastard>
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 09:17:14AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> 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?
IIRC last time we discussed this I expressed a preference for focussing
on the 3.2.0 release, but did not object to a 3.1.12 either. I think
Eric followed up and asked if Christoph had specific concerns that
should prompt a 3.1.12 release. Now I think it's probably just best to
focus on the xfs_repair bits for 3.2.0.
-Ben
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-12-03 22:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-11-25 19:35 [ANNOUNCE] xfsprogs v3.2.0-alpha2 Rich Johnston
2013-11-28 10:40 ` Christoph Hellwig
2013-11-28 21:18 ` Dave Chinner
2013-11-29 8:05 ` Christoph Hellwig
2013-12-03 22:17 ` Dave Chinner
2013-12-03 22:43 ` Ben Myers [this message]
2013-12-04 11:00 ` Christoph Hellwig
2013-12-04 22:01 ` Ben Myers
2013-12-04 23:32 ` Dave Chinner
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=20131203224354.GR1935@sgi.com \
--to=bpm@sgi.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=rjohnston@sgi.com \
--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