[Gluster-Maintainers] [Gluster-devel] Please pause merging patches to 3.9 waiting for just one patch

[Pranith Kumar Karampuri]

Thanks for the reminder. Just merged it. Mostly the release will happen
today.

On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Kaushal M <kshlmster at gmail.com> wrote:

> Pranith,
>
> This change [1] removing experimental xlators isn't merged yet. It
> should be taken in before you do your release.
>
> [1]: https://review.gluster.org/15750
>
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Niels de Vos <ndevos at redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 04:52:29PM -0500, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote:
> >> On 11/10/2016 04:12 PM, Vijay Bellur wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Niels de Vos <ndevos at redhat.com>
> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > The packages from the CentOS Storage SIG will by default provide the
> >> > > latest LTM release. The STM release is provided in addition, and
> needs
> >> > > an extra step to enable.
> >> > >
> >> > > I am not sure how we can handle this in other distributions (or also
> >> > > with the packages on d.g.o.).
> >> >
> >> > Maybe we should not flip the LATEST for non-RPM distributions in
> >> > d.g.o? or should we introduce LTM/LATEST and encourage users to change
> >> > their repository files to point to this?
> >>
> >> I like having LATEST and LTM symlinks, but---
> >>
> >> Did we decide that after 3.8 the next LTM release will be 3.10? (Or 4.0
> >> whenever that lands?) And an LTM release is maintained for 12 or 18
> months?
> >>
> >> If so there probably will be two active LTM releases, assuming we can
> ship
> >> the next releases on time.
> >
> > Yes, and we have is documented (with diagrams!) on
> > https://www.gluster.org/community/release-schedule/ , see the "Post-3.8"
> > section.
> >
> >> We should have LTM-3.8 and eventually LTM-3.10 symlinks then. Or are
> there
> >> other ideas?
> >>
> >> > Packaging in distributions would be handled by package maintainers and
> >> > I presume they can decide the appropriateness of a release for
> >> > packaging?
> >>
> >> Indeed. Well, that's the status quo, and beyond our control in any
> event.
> >
> > We should probably send out a reminder to the packaging list as that
> > should contain all known packagers for different distributions.
> > Including 3.9 in a distribution might be appropriate for some, as long
> > as the distribution/version goes EOL before our STM release.
> >
> > Niels
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > maintainers mailing list
> > maintainers at gluster.org
> > http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
> >
>



-- 
Pranith
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/maintainers/attachments/20161114/c7ca3531/attachment.html>