We had an unpleasant talk, hampered by statics and disconnection on
danken's side. Beyond the noises I've managed to recognize Yaniv, Toni,
Douglas, Danken, Ayal, Timothy, Yeela and Mooli. We've managed to discuss:

- vdsm-4.13.0 is tagged, with a know selinux issue on el6. Expect a new
  seliux-policy solving it any time soon.

- All bugfixes should be backported to ovirt-3.3, so that we have a
  stable and comfortable vdsm in ovirt-3.3.1. Risky changes and new
  features should remain in master IMO.

- We incorporated a glusterfs requirement breaking rpm installaiton for
  people. We should avoid that by posters notifying reviewers more
  prominently and by having
  http://jenkins.ovirt.org/job/vdsm_install_rpm_sanity_gerrit/
  run on every patch that touches vdsm.spec.in.

  David, could you make the adjustment to the job?

- We discussed feature negotiation: Toni and Dan liked the idea of
  having vdsm expose a feature flags, to make it easier on Engine to
  check if a certain feature is supported.

  Ayal argues that this is useful only for capabilities that depend on
  existence on lower level components. Sees little value in fine
  feature granularity on vdsm side - versions is enough.

  So the disputed question is only how many feature flags we should
  have, and when to set them: statically or based on negotiation with
  kernel/libvirt/gluster/what not.

- Unified network persistence patches are being merged into master

- Timothy is working on fixing
  http://jenkins.ovirt.org/job/vdsm_verify_error_codes/lastBuild/console
  (hopefully by introducing the new error codes to Engine)

I was dropped from the call, so please append with stuff that I've
missed. Sorry for the noise!

Dan.
_______________________________________________
vdsm-devel mailing list
vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel

Reply via email to