[gluster-packaging] [Gluster-Maintainers] 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 packaging mailing list