Re: glusterfs rename

2012-06-07 Thread Ric Wheeler
On 06/07/2012 01:04 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: On 06/07/2012 05:29 AM, Ric Wheeler wrote: Do we really need to create a feature page for that and follow the approval process? Seems too heavy weight to me for effectively rebasing a package... It is certainly not required. Feature process is a

Re: glusterfs rename

2012-06-06 Thread Ric Wheeler
On 06/06/2012 07:56 AM, Robyn Bergeron wrote: On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Peter Robinsonpbrobin...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEYkkeit...@redhat.com wrote: On 05/30/2012 02:23 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: Yes, for the Fedora side of things I think

Re: glusterfs rename

2012-06-06 Thread Rahul Sundaram
On 06/07/2012 05:29 AM, Ric Wheeler wrote: Do we really need to create a feature page for that and follow the approval process? Seems too heavy weight to me for effectively rebasing a package... It is certainly not required. Feature process is a marketing and coordination tool. Not a

Re: glusterfs rename

2012-06-05 Thread Robyn Bergeron
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY kkeit...@redhat.com wrote: On 05/30/2012 02:23 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: Yes, for the Fedora side of things I think gluster 3.2 is the best strategy with a

glusterfs rename

2012-05-30 Thread Kaleb S. KEITHLEY
What hoops do I have to jump through, approvals, etc., do I need to respin glusterfs rpms as glusterfs32 (for 3.2.6, and soon 3.2.7), and the imminent glusterfs-3.3.0, which would be glusterfs33. I.e. what is currently glusterfs-3.2.6-2.{fc16,fc17,el6} would become

Re: glusterfs rename

2012-05-30 Thread Tom Callaway
On 05/30/2012 11:46 AM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote: What hoops do I have to jump through, approvals, etc., do I need to respin glusterfs rpms as glusterfs32 (for 3.2.6, and soon 3.2.7), and the imminent glusterfs-3.3.0, which would be glusterfs33. I.e. what is currently

Re: glusterfs rename

2012-05-30 Thread Richard W.M. Jones
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:46:46AM -0400, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote: What hoops do I have to jump through, approvals, etc., do I need to respin glusterfs rpms as glusterfs32 (for 3.2.6, and soon 3.2.7), and the imminent glusterfs-3.3.0, which would be glusterfs33. I.e. what is currently

Re: glusterfs rename

2012-05-30 Thread Kaleb S. KEITHLEY
On 05/30/2012 12:44 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: To be honest it's a pain in the neck to deal with such packages, and unless there's an overwhelming need, I can't recommend it. Does any user really need to parallel install both versions of glusterfs? No, and in fact that would not work.

Re: glusterfs rename

2012-05-30 Thread Kaleb S. KEITHLEY
On 05/30/2012 01:08 PM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote: On 05/30/2012 12:44 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: To be honest it's a pain in the neck to deal with such packages, and unless there's an overwhelming need, I can't recommend it. Does any user really need to parallel install both versions of

Re: glusterfs rename

2012-05-30 Thread Peter Robinson
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY kkeit...@redhat.com wrote: On 05/30/2012 12:44 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: To be honest it's a pain in the neck to deal with such packages, and unless there's an overwhelming need, I can't recommend it.  Does any user really need to

Re: glusterfs rename

2012-05-30 Thread Richard W.M. Jones
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 01:23:42PM -0400, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote: On 05/30/2012 01:08 PM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote: On 05/30/2012 12:44 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: To be honest it's a pain in the neck to deal with such packages, and unless there's an overwhelming need, I can't recommend

Re: glusterfs rename

2012-05-30 Thread Ken Dreyer
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote: I'd be perfectly happy saying we will never ship glusterfs-3.3.x on f16 and f17, but the reality is that there probably are people who want it. So you can always do a fedorapeople repository for those that want to

Re: glusterfs rename

2012-05-30 Thread Kaleb S. KEITHLEY
On 05/30/2012 01:25 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: And FWIW, doing nothing doesn't resolve the glusterfs in EPEL versus glusterfs in the RHS Channel issue. That's a different story entirely, and why would you want gluster in EPEL when it's already in RHEL? What's the difference? This has been

Re: glusterfs rename

2012-05-30 Thread Kaleb S. KEITHLEY
On 05/30/2012 01:34 PM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote: On 05/30/2012 01:25 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: And FWIW, doing nothing doesn't resolve the glusterfs in EPEL versus glusterfs in the RHS Channel issue. That's a different story entirely, and why would you want gluster in EPEL when it's

Re: glusterfs rename

2012-05-30 Thread Peter Robinson
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY kkeit...@redhat.com wrote: On 05/30/2012 01:34 PM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote: On 05/30/2012 01:25 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: And FWIW, doing nothing doesn't resolve the glusterfs in EPEL versus glusterfs in the RHS Channel issue. That's a

Re: glusterfs rename

2012-05-30 Thread Kaleb S. KEITHLEY
On 05/30/2012 02:23 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: Yes, for the Fedora side of things I think gluster 3.2 is the best strategy with a fedorapeople repo of 3.3 if it's considered worthwhile for those that wish to play. For gluster 3.3 I suggest a feature page for F-18 / rawhide. Is it feasible for the

Re: glusterfs rename

2012-05-30 Thread Tom Callaway
On 05/30/2012 03:03 PM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote: On 05/30/2012 02:23 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: Yes, for the Fedora side of things I think gluster 3.2 is the best strategy with a fedorapeople repo of 3.3 if it's considered worthwhile for those that wish to play. For gluster 3.3 I suggest a

Re: glusterfs rename

2012-05-30 Thread Peter Robinson
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY kkeit...@redhat.com wrote: On 05/30/2012 02:23 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: Yes, for the Fedora side of things I think gluster 3.2 is the best strategy with a fedorapeople repo of 3.3 if it's considered worthwhile for those that wish to play.