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 > <atumb...@redhat.com <mailto:atumb...@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 <kkeit...@redhat.com > <mailto:kkeit...@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 > <atumb...@redhat.com <mailto:atumb...@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, > <srang...@redhat.com <mailto:srang...@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, > jenk...@build.gluster.org > <mailto:jenk...@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@gluster.org <mailto:maintainers@gluster.org> > > https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers > > > _______________________________________________ > maintainers mailing list > maintainers@gluster.org <mailto:maintainers@gluster.org> > https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers > > _______________________________________________ > maintainers mailing list > maintainers@gluster.org <mailto:maintainers@gluster.org> > https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers > > > > -- > Amar Tumballi (amarts) > _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list maintainers@gluster.org https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers