[Gluster-Maintainers] [gluster-packaging] glusterfs-5.4 released

[Amar Tumballi Suryanarayan]

I am totally fine with v5.5, my suggestion for moving the tag was if we
consider calling 5.4 with these two patches.

Calling the release as 5.5 is totally OK, and we call it out specifically
in our version numbering scheme, as if something is very serious, we can
break 'release date' train.

-Amar

On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 6:13 PM Kaleb Keithley <kkeithle at redhat.com> wrote:

> The Version tag should be (considered) immutable. Please don't move it.
>
> If you want to add another tag to help us remember this issue that's fine.
>
> The other option which Shyam and I discussed was tagging v5.5.
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 8:32 AM Amar Tumballi Suryanarayan <
> atumball at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> We need to tag different commit may be? So the 'git checkout v5.4' points
>> to the correct commit?
>>
>> On Wed, 13 Mar, 2019, 4:40 PM Shyam Ranganathan, <srangana at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Niels, Kaleb,
>>>
>>> We need to respin 5.4 with the 2 additional commits as follows,
>>>
>>> commit a00953ed212a7071b152c4afccd35b92fa5a682a (HEAD -> release-5,
>>>     core: make compute_cksum function op_version compatible
>>>
>>> commit 8fb4631c65f28dd0a5e0304386efff3c807e64a4
>>>     dict: handle STR_OLD data type in xdr conversions
>>>
>>> As the current build breaks rolling upgrades, we had held back on
>>> announcing 5.4 and are now ready with the fixes that can be used to
>>> respin 5.4.
>>>
>>> Let me know if I need to do anything more from my end for help with the
>>> packaging.
>>>
>>> Once the build is ready, we would be testing it out as usual.
>>>
>>> NOTE: As some users have picked up 5.4 the announce would also carry a
>>> notice, that they need to do a downserver upgrade to the latest bits
>>> owing to the patches that have landed in addition to the existing
>>> content.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Shyam
>>>
>>> On 3/5/19 8:59 AM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote:
>>> > On 2/27/19 5:19 AM, Niels de Vos wrote:
>>> >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 02:47:30PM +0000, jenkins at build.gluster.org
>>> wrote:
>>> >>> SRC:
>>> https://build.gluster.org/job/release-new/80/artifact/glusterfs-5.4.tar.gz
>>> >>> HASH:
>>> https://build.gluster.org/job/release-new/80/artifact/glusterfs-5.4.sha512sum
>>> >>
>>> >> Packages for the CentOS Storage SIG are now available for testing.
>>> >> Please try them out and report test results on this list.
>>> >>
>>> >>   # yum install centos-release-gluster
>>> >>   # yum install --enablerepo=centos-gluster5-test glusterfs-server
>>> >
>>> > Due to patch [1] upgrades are broken, so we are awaiting a fix or
>>> revert
>>> > of the same before requesting a new build of 5.4.
>>> >
>>> > The current RPMs should hence not be published.
>>> >
>>> > Sanju/Hari, are we reverting this patch so that we can release 5.4, or
>>> > are we expecting the fix to land in 5.4 (as in [2])?
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> > Shyam
>>> >
>>> > [1] Patch causing regression:
>>> https://review.gluster.org/c/glusterfs/+/22148
>>> >
>>> > [2] Proposed fix on master:
>>> https://review.gluster.org/c/glusterfs/+/22297/
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > maintainers mailing list
>>> > maintainers at gluster.org
>>> > https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
>>> >
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> maintainers mailing list
>>> maintainers at gluster.org
>>> https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> maintainers mailing list
>> maintainers at gluster.org
>> https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
>>
>

-- 
Amar Tumballi (amarts)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/maintainers/attachments/20190313/ccefe84e/attachment-0001.html>