[Gluster-Maintainers] [Gluster-devel] Release 5: Release calendar and status updates

Susant Palai spalai at redhat.com
Thu Aug 23 05:07:59 UTC 2018

Comments inline
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 11:34 PM Shyam Ranganathan <srangana at redhat.com>

> On 08/14/2018 02:28 PM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote:
> > 2) Branching date: (Monday) Aug-20-2018 (~40 days before GA tagging)
> We are postponing branching to 2nd week of September (10th), as the
> entire effort in this release has been around stability and fixing
> issues across the board.
> Thus, we are expecting no net new features from hereon till branching,
> and features that are already a part of the code base and its details
> are as below.
> >
> > 3) Late feature back port closure: (Friday) Aug-24-2018 (1 week from
> > branching)
> As stated above, there is no late feature back port.
> The features that are part of master since 4.1 release are as follows,
> with some questions for the authors,
> 1) Changes to options tables in xlators (#302)
> @Kaushal/GD2 team, can we call this complete? There maybe no real
> release notes for the same, as these are internal in nature, but
> checking nevertheless.
> 2) CloudArchival (#387)
> @susant, what is the status of this feature? Is it complete?
The feature is complete from a functional point of view. But still would
like to retain "experimental" status for few releases.

> I am missing user documentation, and code coverage from the tests is
User documentation is here:
Or should there be some other doc I missed?

> very low (see:
> https://build.gluster.org/job/line-coverage/485/Line_20Coverage_20Report/
> )
This is expected as without any plugin most of the code is untouched. It's
just a bypass in the build setup.

> 3) Quota fsck (#390)
> @Sanoj I do have documentation in the github issue, but would prefer if
> the user facing documentation moves to glusterdocs instead.
> Further I see no real test coverage for the tool provided here, any
> thoughts around the same?
> The script is not part of the tarball and hence the distribution RPMs as
> well, what is the thought around distributing the same?
> 4) Ensure python3 compatibility across code base (#411)
> @Kaleb/others, last patch to call this issue done (sans real testing at
> the moment) is https://review.gluster.org/c/glusterfs/+/20868 request
> review and votes here, to get this merged before branching.
> 5) Turn on Dentry fop serializer by default in brick stack (#421)
> @du, the release note for this can be short, as other details are
> captured in 4.0 release notes.
> However, in 4.0 release we noted a limitation with this feature as follows,
> "Limitations: This feature is released as a technical preview, as
> performance implications are not known completely." (see section
> https://docs.gluster.org/en/latest/release-notes/4.0.0/#standalone )
> Do we now have better data regarding the same that we can use when
> announcing the release?
> Thanks,
> Shyam
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-devel mailing list
> Gluster-devel at gluster.org
> https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/maintainers/attachments/20180823/fa79d5f3/attachment.html>

More information about the maintainers mailing list