On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 5:11 PM, Raghavendra G <raghaven...@gluster.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 4:49 PM, Raghavendra Gowdappa <rgowd...@redhat.com > > wrote: > >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> > From: "Shyam Ranganathan" <srang...@redhat.com> >> > To: "Gluster Devel" <gluster-devel@gluster.org>, "GlusterFS >> Maintainers" <maintain...@gluster.org> >> > Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 9:49:51 PM >> > Subject: Re: [Gluster-Maintainers] [Gluster-devel] Release 4.0: Branched >> > >> > On 01/23/2018 03:17 PM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: >> > > 4.0 release has been branched! >> > > >> > > I will follow this up with a more detailed schedule for the release, >> and >> > > also the granted feature backport exceptions that we are waiting. >> > > >> > > Feature backports would need to make it in by this weekend, so that we >> > > can tag RC0 by the end of the month. >> > >> > Backports need to be ready for merge on or before Jan, 29th 2018 3:00 PM >> > Eastern TZ. >> > >> > Features that requested and hence are granted backport exceptions are as >> > follows, >> > >> > 1) Dentry fop serializer xlator on brick stack >> > https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs/issues/397 >> > >> > @Du please backport the same to the 4.0 branch as the patch in master is >> > merged. >> >> Sure. >> > > https://review.gluster.org/#/c/19340/1 > But this might fail smoke as the bug associated is not associated with 4.0 > branch. Blocked on 4.0 version tag in bugzilla. > I think you can use the same github issue id and don't need a bug here since it's a feature? > >> > >> > 2) Leases support on GlusterFS >> > https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs/issues/350 >> > >> > @Jiffin and @ndevos, there is one patch pending against master, >> > https://review.gluster.org/#/c/18785/ please do the needful and >> backport >> > this to the 4.0 branch. >> > >> > 3) Data corruption in write ordering of rebalance and application writes >> > https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs/issues/308 >> > >> > @susant, @du if we can conclude on the strategy here, please backport as >> > needed. >> >> https://review.gluster.org/#/c/19207/ >> Review comments need to be addressed and centos regressions are failing. >> >> https://review.gluster.org/#/c/19202/ >> There are some suggestions on the patch. If others agree they are valid, >> this patch can be considered as redundant with approach of #19207. However, >> as I've mentioned in the comments there are some tradeoffs too. So, Waiting >> for response to my comments. If nobody responds in the time period given, >> we can merge the patch and susant will have to backport to 4.0 branch. >> >> > >> > 4) Couple of patches that are tracked for a backport are, >> > https://review.gluster.org/#/c/19223/ >> > https://review.gluster.org/#/c/19267/ (prep for ctime changes in later >> > releases) >> > >> > Other features discussed are not in scope for a backports to 4.0. >> > >> > If you asked for one and do not see it in this list, shout out! >> > >> > > >> > > Only exception could be: https://review.gluster.org/#/c/19223/ >> > > >> > > Thanks, >> > > Shyam >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > Gluster-devel mailing list >> > > Gluster-devel@gluster.org >> > > http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > maintainers mailing list >> > maintain...@gluster.org >> > http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> Gluster-devel mailing list >> Gluster-devel@gluster.org >> http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel >> > > > > -- > Raghavendra G > > _______________________________________________ > maintainers mailing list > maintain...@gluster.org > http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers > >
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@gluster.org http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
