On 09/12/2017 08:27 AM, Niels de Vos wrote:
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:19:17PM +0000, Atin Mukherjee wrote:
On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 at 16:20, Shyam Ranganathan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 09/11/2017 11:48 PM, Amye Scavarda wrote:
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:35 PM, Amar Tumballi <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 12-Sep-2017 6:47 AM, "Atin Mukherjee" <[email protected]> wrote:
Can someone please explain what's the reason of doing 3.12.1 so early,
just
after 5 days of 3.12?
May I understand, why the concern?
Honestly, I missed the fact that as per our release schedule 3.12.z is
scheduled for 10th of every months, so no real objection here, what has
been done here is as per the process.
On the other side of it, after relooking at .z updates schedule I was just
debating with myself do we have to absolutely be strict on the dates
especially when a new LTS release is pushed out to the users just few days
back and we come out with .1 updates with very limited number of bug fixes?
Probably a balance of the timeline and the volume of bug fixes is something
to be relooked at?
It seems like looking at schedule with scope in mind for a minor
release, and in the past that has not worked, there is always something
extra in the scope to be added (hence wait!) or nothing. The current
scheme works, with the understanding around cut off dates and what
constitutes backports etc. (IMO)
I am of the opinion that even if there is a single bugfix that would
help some users, we should do the release.
+1
I think it is important for users to have the regular releases, and on
time. Every time a release gets delayed, packagers will need to adjust
their planning too.
+1
It is unfortunate that the 3.12.0 release did not happen on the 10th of
August, that would have been ideal. This is probably something that can
be tried to schedule better for 3.13.0.
That would be 20 days less than the 3 months, adjusting the major
release to the minor release schedule does not make sense to me.
Instead, the first minor release, is either 10/20/30 days from the major
release, works fine for most purposes IMO.
Further, there could be out of band minor release to address a
blocker/security issue, which is the really unplanned one and could
cause confusion, but it would be unavoidable in such cases.
Niels
As per the schedule? It's 10days since release.
-Amar
Said another way, we have a scheduled maintenance day of the 10th for
this particular release:
https://www.gluster.org/release-schedule/
Happy to welcome changes to this that make sense, because yes, it
periodically collides like this!
Minor releases are bug fix releases, so things available as bug fixes
will be pushed out. So if we want this changed, there needs to be
reasoning around it as well (just saying).
-- amye
On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 at 22:58, Gluster Build System
<[email protected]> wrote:
SRC:
http://bits.gluster.org/pub/gluster/glusterfs/src/glusterfs-3.12.1.tar.gz
This release is made off v3.12.1
-- Gluster Build System
_______________________________________________
maintainers mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
--
- Atin (atinm)
_______________________________________________
maintainers mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
_______________________________________________
maintainers mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
_______________________________________________
maintainers mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
--
- Atin (atinm)
_______________________________________________
maintainers mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
_______________________________________________
maintainers mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
