[Gluster-devel] 3.6 Feature Freeze - move to mid next week?

[Anders Blomdell]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2014-07-04 17:14, Jeff Darcy wrote:
>> Given the holiday weekend in US, I feel that it would be appropriate
>> to move the 3.6 feature freeze date to mid next week so that we can
>> have more reviews done & address review comments too. We can still
>> continue to track other milestones as per our release schedule [1].
>> What do you folks think?
> 
> I think the answer depends on what we can expect to change between now
> and then.  Since the gluster.org feature page never got updated to
> reflect the real feature set for 3.6, I took the list from email sent
> after the planning meeting.
> 
>   * Better SSL
>     Two out of three patches merged, one still in review.
> 
>   * Data Classification
>     Design barely begun.
> 
>   * Heterogeneous Bricks
>     Patch has CR+1 V+1 but still stalled in review.
> 
>   * Trash
>     Ancient one is still there, probably doesn't even work.
> 
>   * Disperse
>     Patches still in very active review.
> 
>   * Persistent AFR Changelog Xattributes
>     Patches merged.
> 
>   * Better Peer Identification
>     Patch still in review (fails verification).
> 
>   * Gluster Volume Snapshot
>     Tons of patches merged, tons more still to come.
> 
>   * AFRv2
>     Jammed in long ago.
> 
>   * Policy Based Split-Brain Resolver (PBSBR)
>     No patches, feature page still says in design.
> 
>   * RDMA Improvements
>     No patches, feature page says work in progress.
> 
>   * Server-side Barrier Feature
>     Patches merged.
> 
> 
> That leaves us with a very short list of items that are likely to change
> state.
> 
>   * Better SSL
> 
>   * Heterogeneous Bricks
> 
>   * Disperse
> 
>   * Better Peer Identification
> 
> Of those, I think only disperse is likely to benefit from an extension.
> The others just need people to step up and finish reviewing them, which
> could happen today if there were sufficient will.  The real question is
> what to do about disperse.  Some might argue that it's already complete
> enough to go in, so long as its limitations are documented
> appropriately.  Others might argue that it's still months away from
> being usable (especially wrt performance).  In a way it doesn't matter,
> because either way a few days won't make a difference.  We just need to
> make a collective decision based on its current state (or close to it).
> If we need to wait a few days before people can come together for that,
> so be it.

OK, this probably answered my earlier question, since there is no IPv6 on 
this list (stated somewhere to depend on 'Better Peer Identification'),
i.e. I should stick to 3.5.1 and only apply patches to address my needs
and then check what needs to be done when 3.6.0 is out.

/Anders


- -- 
Anders Blomdell                  Email: anders.blomdell at control.lth.se
Department of Automatic Control
Lund University                  Phone:    +46 46 222 4625
P.O. Box 118                     Fax:      +46 46 138118
SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTtsZ3AAoJENZYyvaDG8NcJPMH/j1P/DN4lerQHtxOLjS7b6MM
dNw12blXOIioFbGv/Sh7EYQm5A0Db4Hk21ngIYQcrZVgab/rVv6pfqvpV97S74sE
A1yzTfJSMtshSter4F4VSV7BZrPHq7+hYKEkTNEu4Ugw7+PcGvjMAhfVmgiVqUT4
xTqSzB3IsOPELXIOrlB6AZbA7037UvWyyhxjilH5IRVW8KB2ButP2baP0zXlXMf6
622mn3CK11mp/VrXHyxBgGXUMWpJQ9r1vLEn4COhqhALQJ+0vW8uayzcYMYWz56m
etTJKtGTZtPalrt1XrFq2Ny5o1KsG4GXlRIGwoqIHtn2v71Sserl6CZQRA+AVAo=
=/oBv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----