On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 01:05:33PM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote: > On Tuesday, September 29, 2015, Ben Pfaff <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 08:49:49AM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 8:38 AM, Nithin Raju <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On Sep 23, 2015, at 8:33 AM, Jesse Gross <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 11:04 PM, Nithin Raju <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >>> hi Jesse, > > > >>> We are getting the Hyper-V solution to a state with the following > > goals: > > > >>> - Work “out of the box” ie. no need to make special settings such as > > disabling checksum offload, TSO, etc. > > > >>> - Reasonably stable > > > >>> > > > >>> Most of the patches we have checked in so far into 2.4 are geared > > towards these two goals. Once all of the required changes go in, and we are > > reasonably confident about the stability, we can hopefully make an > > announcement about Hyper-V support. > > > >> > > > >> This is my concern - there should not be any announcements based on > > > >> stable branches because there should be no development on stable > > > >> branches. The only thing that should go in is targeted bug fixes to > > > >> address issues that came up after the release. > > > >> > > > >> All of the goals that you listed are good things and make sense - on > > > >> the master branch. However, I don't see a need to bring these back to > > > >> 2.4. My guess is that there is no more churn in the common code on > > > >> master than with the Windows patches here. > > > >> > > > >> So please just target 2.5 as the release to make an announcement about > > > >> Hyper-V support. I promise that this release cycle won't be as long as > > > >> 2.4. > > > > > > > > Jesse, > > > > We were hoping for a dot release off of 2.4. Like a 2.4.1 or 2.4.2 to > > announce support. Would that not be the right release vehicle? > > > > > > No, there should be no new features in point releases. 2.5 is the next > > > release where it would makes sense to do this. My guess is that will > > > be some time around the end of the year. > > > > The patches I've seen from the Hyper-V developers so far are just in > > Hyper-V specific code, that can't really affect the stability of the > > rest of the platform. I have questions about the value of doing this on > > 2.4, given that 2.5 will branch in a reasonable amount of time, but > > since they're eager to do it I'm not sure that it's worth discouraging > > them ;-) > > > > I think it does cause problems for people who want to upgrade OVS in > production deployments as often it is not desirable to just take a large > set of changes wholesale for a bugfix release. If there are many unrelated > commits for feature development it makes it harder to identify what is > actually going on. I'm also not sure that it is true that there are no > changes to common code.
Nithin, Alin, et al., why do you guys want this on branch-2.4 so badly? Everything that Jesse is saying is right, and despite my initial instincts I'm inclined to agree with him in the end. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
