[Gluster-Maintainers] [gluster-packaging] glusterfs-5.4 released
Shyam Ranganathan
srangana at redhat.com
Wed Mar 13 14:44:33 UTC 2019
On 3/13/19 9:09 AM, Kaleb Keithley wrote:
> The v5.4 tag was made and a release job was run which gave us
> https://build.gluster.org/job/release-new/80/artifact/glusterfs-5.4.tar.gz.
> If the v5.4 tag is moved then there's a logical disconnect between the
> tag and _that_ tar file, or more accurately the files in that tar file.
>
> Shyam and I discussed the merits of releasing v5.5 versus respinning
> builds with patches. Respinning builds with patches isn't uncommon. The
> difference in the amount of work between one or the other is negligible.
> In the end Shyam (mainly) decided to go with respinning with patches
> because a full up "release" for him is a lot more work. (And we both
> have other $dayjob things we need to be working on instead of endlessly
> spinning releases and packages.)
Considering all comments/conversations, I think I will tag a v5.5 with
the required commits and update the 5.4 release-notes to call it 5.5
with the added changes.
Give me a couple of hours :)
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 8:52 AM Amar Tumballi Suryanarayan
> <atumball at redhat.com <mailto:atumball at redhat.com>> wrote:
>
> 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <mailto:maintainers at gluster.org>
> > https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
> >
> _______________________________________________
> maintainers mailing list
> maintainers at gluster.org <mailto:maintainers at gluster.org>
> https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
>
> _______________________________________________
> maintainers mailing list
> maintainers at gluster.org <mailto:maintainers at gluster.org>
> https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
>
>
>
> --
> Amar Tumballi (amarts)
>
More information about the maintainers
mailing list