[Gluster-Maintainers] Gluster Test Thursday - Release 3.9

[Kaleb S. KEITHLEY]

On 10/25/2016 12:11 PM, Niels de Vos wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 07:51:47AM -0400, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote:
>> On 10/25/2016 06:46 AM, Atin Mukherjee wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Aravinda <avishwan at redhat.com
>>> <mailto:avishwan at redhat.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     Hi,
>>>
>>>     Since Automated test framework for Gluster is in progress, we need
>>>     help from Maintainers and developers to test the features and bug
>>>     fixes to release Gluster 3.9.
>>>
>>>     In last maintainers meeting Shyam shared an idea about having a Test
>>>     day to accelerate the testing and release.
>>>
>>>     Please participate in testing your component(s) on Oct 27, 2016. We
>>>     will prepare the rc2 build by tomorrow and share the details before
>>       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>     Test day.
>>>
>>>     RC1 Link:
>>>     http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/maintainers/2016-September/001442.html
>>>     <http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/maintainers/2016-September/001442.html>
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think testing RC1 would be ideal as 3.9 head has moved forward
>>> with significant number of patches. I'd recommend of having an RC2 here.
>>>
>>
>> BTW, please tag RC2 as 3.9.0rc2 (versus 3.9rc2).  It makes building
>> packages for Fedora much easier.
>>
>> I know you were following what was done for 3.8rcX. That was a pain. :-}
> 
> Can you explain what the problem is with 3.9rc2 and 3.9.0? The huge
> advantage is that 3.9.0 is seen as a version update to 3.9rc2. When
> 3.9.0rc2 is used, 3.9.0 is *not* an update for that, and rc2 packages
> will stay installed until 3.9.1 is released...
> 
> You can check this easily with the rpmdev-vercmp command:
> 
>    $ rpmdev-vercmp 3.9.0rc2 3.9.0
>    3.9.0rc2 > 3.9.0
>    $ rpmdev-vercmp 3.9rc2 3.9.0
>    3.9rc2 < 3.9.0

Those aren't really very realistic RPM NVRs IMO.

> 
> So, at least for RPM packaging, 3.9rc2 is recommended, and 3.9.0rc2 is
> problematic.

That's not the only thing recommended.

Last I knew, one of several things that are recommended is, e.g.,
3.9.0-0.2rc2; 3.9.0-1 > 3.9.0-0.2rc2.

The RC (and {qa,alpha,beta}) packages (that I've) built for Fedora for
several years have had NVRs in that form.

This scheme was what was suggested to me on the fedora-devel mailing
list several years ago.

When RCs are tagged as 3.9rc1, then I have to make non-trivial and
counter-intuitive changes to the .spec file to build packages with NVRs
like 3.9.0-0.XrcY. If they are tagged 3.9.0rc1 then the changes much
more straight forward and much simpler.

-- 

Kaleb

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/maintainers/attachments/20161025/ad2018f5/attachment.sig>