[Gluster-Maintainers] 3.8 Plan changes - proposal
srangana at redhat.com
Thu Jan 7 17:24:11 UTC 2016
On 01/06/2016 09:44 PM, Vijay Bellur wrote:
> Hi All,
> I am considering the following changes for 3.8:
> 1. Include 4.0 features such as NSR, dht2, glusterd2.0 & eventing as
> experimental features in 3.8. 4.0 features are shaping up reasonably
> well and it would be nice to have them packaged in 3.8 so that we can
> get more meaningful feedback early on. As 4.0 features mature, we can
> push them out through subsequent 3.8.x releases to derive iterative
Agree, this would be good as we can start getting some early feedback.
> 2. Ensure that most of our components have tests in distaf by 3.8. I
> would like us to have more deterministic pre-release testing for 3.8 and
> having tests in distaf should help us in accomplishing that goal.
Agreed, this thread  on our dependencies and also compatibility with
older releases would help in better testing.
Do we know the effort required to make this happen? That can be a
determining factor in the delay or release goals.
> 3. Add "forward compatibility" section to all feature pages proposed for
> 3.8 so that we carefully review the impact of a feature on all upcoming
> Gluster.next features.
Agreed, and needed.
> 4. Have Niels de Vos as the maintainer for 3.8 with immediate effect.
> This is a change from the past where we have had release maintainers
> after a .0 release is in place. I think Niels' diligence as a release
> manager will help us in having a more polished .0 release.
Well +1 for sure, but would leave it to ndevos on the ack ;)
If there is an ack, then for sure I would like to assist in any
governance related enabling for the release.
> 5. Move out 3.8 by 2-3 months (end of May or early June 2016) to
> accomplish these changes.
Can we revisit the exact month in 2 weeks? So that we have enough prep
time to commit what makes it to the release (for example from a DHT2
perspective). I know we have the MVP proposal out and that should be the
goal, but a little more thought would help.
Also, the delay by 2-3 months I would state is more due to (2) than
anything, (1) and (3) are desirable at this point for 3.8 and good to do.
> Would like to know your thoughts and opinions about this proposal before
> we reach out to the broader community about the changes.
More information about the maintainers