[Gluster-Maintainers] Release 3.11.1: Scheduled for 20th of June

Pranith Kumar Karampuri pkarampu at redhat.com
Tue Jun 27 06:03:40 UTC 2017

On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 8:01 PM, Shyam <srangana at redhat.com> wrote:

> On 06/20/2017 08:41 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
>>     1) Are there any pending *blocker* bugs that need to be tracked for
>>     3.11.1? If so mark them against the provided tracker [1] as blockers
>>     for the release, or at the very least post them as a response to this
>>     mail
>> I added https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1463250 as blocker
>> just now for this release. We just completed the discussion about
>> solution on gluster-devel. We are hoping to get the patch in by EOD
>> tomorrow IST. This is a geo-rep regression we introduced because of
>> changing node-uuid behavior. My mistake :-(
> As we wait for the final patch in this series that fixes the mentioned bug
> above, I wanted to state something around regression here.
> The patches that introduced the problem, were present in 3.11.0 itself,
> hence this is not a regression for 3.11.1

The problem is a regression from 3.8.x.

>   - https://review.gluster.org/#/c/17312/
>   - https://review.gluster.org/#/c/17336/
>   - https://review.gluster.org/#/c/17318/
> Delay to the release should be based on regressions, and blockers (think
> data corruption, cores, larger than sustainable breakage of code).
> In this instance, I think we over reacted, and hence wanted to take the
> opportunity to point the same out (I should have done my work as well in
> checking when this problem was introduced etc. before delaying the release).
> In the future, we would like to stick with the release calendar, as that
> is published and well known, than delay releases. Hence, when raising
> blockers for a release or delaying the release, expect more questions and
> diligence required around the same in the future.

May be a good rule of thumb to come up with I think would be, what has to
be done in case it is a regression with an existing previous release but in
this branch we already made a release with the regression. That clarity
would prevent these kinds of issues from repeating. One more thing would
be, what should be communicated to the users when this slip happens?

> Thanks,
> Shyam
> _______________________________________________
> maintainers mailing list
> maintainers at gluster.org
> http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/maintainers/attachments/20170627/8536ec54/attachment.html>

More information about the maintainers mailing list