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 >> <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 > _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list maintainers@gluster.org https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers