[Gluster-Maintainers] [gluster-packaging] glusterfs-5.4 released
Shyam Ranganathan
srangana at redhat.com
Fri Mar 15 13:24:51 UTC 2019
On 3/13/19 10:44 AM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote:
> 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 :)
Well that took longer (sorry was out sick for some time).
5.4 is now tagged and the release tarball generated for packaging.
>
>>
>>
>> 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)
>>
> _______________________________________________
> maintainers mailing list
> maintainers at gluster.org
> https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
>
More information about the maintainers
mailing list