On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 02:46:32AM +0000, Nithin Raju wrote: > > On Sep 29, 2015, at 5:01 PM, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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. > > Ben, > Our goal is to get onto the next earliest release of OVS be it 2.5 or 2.4.1. > > If you think that 2.5 will happen soon enough, we can wait for it. Otherwise, > we are inclined to request a 2.4.1 release with Hyper-V support. > > For now, we can commit to master, and perhaps decide in a month or so as to > what the release branch should be. If it turns out to be 2.4.1, we’ll have to > do a bunch of crossposts, and I can help with that. > > Is that reasonable?
I think it's best to wait to branch 2.5. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
