[Gluster-users] [Gluster-devel] [FEEDBACK] Governance of GlusterFS project

Anand Avati anand.avati at gmail.com
Tue Jul 30 09:38:48 UTC 2013

On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Bryan Whitehead <driver at megahappy.net>wrote:

> Weekend activities kept me away from watching this thread, wanted to
> add in more of my 2 cents... :)
> Major releases would be great to happen more often - but keeping
> current releases "more current" is really what I was talking about.
> Example, 3.3.0 was a pretty solid release but some annoying bugs got
> fixed and it felt like 3.3.1 was reasonably quick to come. But that
> release seemed to be a step back for rdma (forgive me if I was wrong -
> but I think it wasn't even possible to fuse/mount over rdma with 3.3.1
> while 3.3.0 worked). But 3.3.2 release took a pretty long time to come
> and fix that regression. I think I also recall seeing a bunch of nfs
> fixes coming and regressing (but since I don't use gluster/nfs I don't
> follow closely).

Bryan - yes, point well taken. I believe a dedicated release maintainer
role will help in this case. I would like to hear other suggestions or
thoughts on how you/others think this can be implemented.

> What I'd like to see:
> In the -devel maillinglist right now I see someone is showing brick
> add / brick replace in 3.4.0 is causing a segfault in apps using
> libgfapi (in this case qemu/libvirt) to get at gluster volumes. It
> looks like some patches were provided to fix the issue. Assuming those
> patches work I think a 3.4.1 release might be worth being pushed out.
> Basic stuff like that on something that a lot of people are going to
> care about (qemu/libvirt integration - or plain libgfapi). So if there
> was a scheduled release for say - every 1-3 months - then I think that
> might be worth doing. Ref:
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gluster-devel/2013-07/msg00089.html

Right, thanks for highlighting. These fixes will be back ported. I have
already submitted the backport of one of them for review at
http://review.gluster.org/5427. The other will be backported once reviewed
and accepted in master.

Thanks again!

The front page of gluster.org says 3.4.0 has "Virtual Machine Image
> Storage improvements". If 1-3 months from now more traction with
> CloudStack/OpenStack or just straight up libvirtd/qemu with gluster
> gets going. I'd much rather tell someone "make sure to use 3.4.1" than
> "be careful when doing an add-brick - all your VM's will segfault".
> On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Emmanuel Dreyfus <manu at netbsd.org> wrote:
> > Harshavardhana <harsha at harshavardhana.net> wrote:
> >
> >> What is good for GlusterFS as a whole is highly debatable - since there
> >> are no module owners/subsystem maintainers as of yet at-least on paper.
> >
> > Just my two cents on that: you need to make clear if a module maintainer
> > is a dictator or a steward for the module: does he has the last word on
> > anything touching his module, or is there some higher instance to settle
> > discussions that do not reach consensus?
> >
> > IMO the first approach creates two problems:
> >
> > - having just one responsible person for a module is a huge bet that
> > this person will have good judgments. Be careful to let a maintainer
> > position open instead of assigning it to the wrong person.
> >
> > - having many different dictators each ruling over a module can create
> > difficult situations when a proposed change impacts many modules.
> >
> > --
> > Emmanuel Dreyfus
> > http://hcpnet.free.fr/pubz
> > manu at netbsd.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://supercolony.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20130730/b5763263/attachment.html>

More information about the Gluster-users mailing list