On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 02:24:19PM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote: > On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 08:39:31AM -0300, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo > > wrote: > >> On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 08:59:35AM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote: > >> > The proposed Open vSwitch release schedule calls for branching 2.6 from > >> > master on Aug. 1, followed by a period of bug fixes and stabilization, > >> > with release on Sep. 15. The proposed release schedule is posted here > >> > for review: > >> > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/650319/ > >> > > >> > I don't yet know of a reason to modify this schedule. > >> > > >> > If you know of reasons to change it, now is an appropriate time to bring > >> > it up for discussion. In addition, if you have features planned for 2.6 > >> > that risk hitting master somewhat late for the branch, it is also a good > >> > time to bring these up for discussion, so that we can plan to backport > >> > them to the branch early on, or to delay the branch by a few days. > >> > >> I would like to see the rtnetlink patchset included. One of things > >> that needs to happen before that is taking those decisions about > >> netdev_open and the existence of conflicting port types with the same > >> name. For example, a system interface and an interface in the database > >> with the same name but a different type. > >> > >> I will post some comments on the discussion we already have opened for > >> that. > >> > >> Just wanted to take the opportunity to mention this expectation of > >> getting those into 2.6. > > > > For that feature, I need to defer to Jesse (added to the thread). > > I think since there isn't yet a patch for this yet that is about ready > to be applied, we'll need to make a call at the time the code is > applied to master. If it's one day after we branch, sure that's fine; > one day before release, obviously not; anything in the middle we'll > need to decide. > > However, based on the code that has been sent out previously, I think > this is mostly infrastructure at this point rather than user-visible > changes. It would allow other features to be built on top of it but > that would be a follow on change. If that's the case, is there any > particular reason to try to get this in 2.6?
Hi, Jesse. Considering that it's very unlikely that other follow-up patches would go in, I agree that this could wait. Thanks for considering. Cascardo. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
