2.0.9 was just a placeholder name. It never really existed.
The new release numbering scheme which we agreed upon was this:
x.y.0 releases contain new features
x.y.z, where z >= 1, releases contain only bug fixes
Our friends at Novell put out a release which they named "2.0.8", which
was not very much like Heartbeat version 2.0.8 (it had hundreds of
changes and a few features not in 2.0.8), and which they unfortunately
called "2.0.8", but which had only been tested by SUSE staff, and they
put it out as service pack 1 of SLES10.
Although they did do relatively thorough testing on their hardware, it
ran poorly on my cluster (had a number of regressions), and on our power
PC cluster. Keep in mind that the project has very high standards for
testing, so this is a relative term. Bad testing for us would be
considered very good testing by some other HA projects I'm familiar
with. Of course, we always want to do better, and I'm sure everyone
here feels the same way.
Unfortunately, they didn't tell me they were going to do this, or it
would have been better-tested and probably would have been numbered as
2.0.9 or 2.1.0. I work hard to coordinate closely with them near their
release times, but this time they declined to inform me of their plans.
They did tell some people in my company, but those people did not tell
me, nor did Novell ask them to tell me.
And, they said that the next release after their "2.0.8" release had to
be bug fix only, because they had added all the features they were going
to allow in their release, and new features would have delayed it. So,
that's OK with me.
This release had been labeled as "2.0.8", but was really much more than
the real 2.0.8, and unfortunately not as thoroughly tested as I would
have liked. And, it had new features in it. So, it _should_ have been
numbered as 2.1.0.
So, to try and get things kind of back in sync, we came to an agreement
to skip that release in the numbering system, and the next release will
be numbered as 2.1.1.
After this release gets finalized, for historical reasons I'll probably
go back and put out a release called 2.1.0, which will have exactly the
same content as Novell's SP1 "2.0.8".
I would have done it before now, since by definition, I can't change
anything in it if it's to be a mirror of the SLES10 SP1 "2.0.8" version
so I don't have to test it, but that would have delayed the 2.1.1
release even more.
I apologize for the confusion, but because of the release numbering
mishap, it seems the best way to get back on track.
Although some others have implied that this new release is a surprise to
them, it has been under discussion for some time, and we've been trying
to put the final touches on it for the last few weeks, as the person in
question well knows.
When it would get finished is always a bit of a surprise to us all. No
one knows how long it's going to take to fix a certain set of bugs, what
people's personal, work and vacation schedules are like, and how long it
will take to stabilize the resulting release. Even now, I don't know
for sure we don't have any more to stabilize, but I'm putting a line in
the sand saying "now's the time to stabilize it and put it out". No
potentially destabilizing bug fixes, unless they're going to keep data
from being destroyed or something of a similar priority.
It should also be noted that I didn't say all changes had to be ready in
the next 12 hours, I asked to be informed of planned changes in the next
12 hours. And, if someone wanted to say "add 8 hours for time zone
differences" I could live with that.
But, unless I throw down the gauntlet (and potentially ruffle a few
feathers), a well-tested release will _never_ get out. And right now,
the release looks reasonable, better than the pseudo-"2.0.8" that was
shipped earlier. [But looking at test results indicates it still may
have some regressions. We'll see how major they are...].
And, of course, there's always the next release. Which if we get this
one out now, will come sooner than if we don't.
A few weeks ago a person on the project insisted that I was killing the
project by not putting out a release RIGHT NOW even though the current
version had known regressions. Earlier today, after we fixed the
regressions that were problematic then, this same person comes out
whining that I'm putting it out too soon.
You just can't please some people.
--
Alan Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Openness is the foundation and preservative of friendship... Let me
claim from you at all times your undisguised opinions." - William
Wilberforce
--- Begin Message ---
So what happened to 2.0.9 and 2.1.0 releases? They never came out.
On 7/11/07, Alan Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I've put in the final set of fixes I'm planning on putting into the
2.1.1 release.
Of course, I probably missed something, and I've probably missed
something from you... ;-)
So, let me know VERY SOON (like in the next 12 hours) if that's the case...
And, unless you're putting in a critical bug fix, please hold it for a
few days until the last part of this release ordeal is over...
--
Alan Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Openness is the foundation and preservative of friendship... Let me
claim from you at all times your undisguised opinions." - William
Wilberforce
_______________________________________________________
Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
--
Serge Dubrouski.
_______________________________________________________
Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
--- End Message ---
_______________________________________________________
Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
