From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id n9QMaE8J259922 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:36:14 -0500 Received: from mail.sandeen.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 91CF417CC4B8 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:37:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.sandeen.net (sandeen.net [209.173.210.139]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 9QCL9ouqtKcGnDIT for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:37:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4AE624BE.8020807@sandeen.net> Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:37:50 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: xfsprogs 3.0.5 "release" References: <20091025070331.GA21120@infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <20091025070331.GA21120@infradead.org> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: nathans@debian.org, vapier@gentoo.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com Christoph Hellwig wrote: > It looks like SGI rushed out a 3.0.5 xfsprogs release which contains > various half-cooked changes including additions to shared libraries > without bumping the minor version and wrong patch attributions. > > I can only recommend to not pick it up for distributions and wait for a > proper release from the kernel.org trees after the full release > engineering process has finished. The current plan is to have a release > end of Novemeber, we'll have to figure out the naming / numbering to not > clash with the SGI versions. Alex did ping me about doing a release, and I didn't complain, so sorry about that. I hadn't really looked in detail at what was in the tree, and the library change totally escaped me. So Alex isn't working in a total vacuum, but he consulted a total air-head I guess. ;) Let's work to fix the trees and give Alex another shot; I understand the frusttation with SGI, and I share it, for constantly putting new (new as in "green") maintainers in place, but I think Alex is doing his best on short notice. Anyway I share some of the blame, let's not go for the nuclear option yet, if there's still a little patience left on your part, Christoph. I do feel like if time goes by and SGI's only role continues to be playing patch-monkey by pulling others' changes into their tree, that's not maintaining, an we should just cut releases on our own... but I'm willing to give it a little more time, based on what I know of Alex's interest & abilities here. Thanks, -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs