On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 11:44:21AM -0500, Vijay Bellur wrote: > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Shyam <srang...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 11/10/2016 11:01 AM, Vijay Bellur wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Shyam <srang...@redhat.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 11/10/2016 10:21 AM, Vijay Bellur wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Manikandan Selvaganesh > >>>> <manikandancs...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> Given that we are done with the last release in 3.6.x, I think there > >>>> would be users looking to upgrade. My vote is to include the > >>>> necessary patches in 3.9 and not let users go through unnatural > >>>> workflows to get quota working again in 3.9.0. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> <Comment is without knowing if the necessary patches are good to go> > >>> > >>> Consider this a curiosity question ATM, > >>> > >>> 3.9 is an LTM, right? So we are not stating workflows here are set in > >>> stone? > >>> Can this not be an projected workflow? > >>> > >> > >> > >> 3.9 is a STM release as per [1]. > > > > > > Sorry, I meant STM. > > > >> > >> Irrespective of a release being LTM or not, being able to upgrade to a > >> release without operational disruptions is a requirement. > > > > > > I would say upgrade to an STM *maybe* painful, as it is an STM and hence may > > contain changes that are yet to be announced stable or changed workflows > > that are not easy to upgrade to. We do need to document them though, even > > for the STM. > > > > Along these lines, the next LTM should be as stated, i.e "without > > operational disruptions". The STM is for adventurous folks, no? > > > > In my view STM releases for getting new features out early. This would > enable early adopters to try and provide feedback about new features. > Existing features and upgrades should work smoothly. IOW, we do not > want to have known regressions for existing features in STM releases. > New features might have rough edges and this should be amply > advertised.
I do not think users on 3.6 are the right consumers for a STM release. These users are conservative and did not ugrade earlier. I doubt they are interested in new features *now*. Users that did not upgrade before, are unlikely the users that will upgrade in three months when 3.9 is EOL. > In this specific case, quota has not undergone any significant changes > in 3.9 and letting such a relatively unchanged feature affect users > upgrading from 3.6 does not seem right to me. Also note that since > LATEST in d.g.o would point to 3.9.0 after the release, users > performing package upgrades on their systems could end up with 3.9.0 > inadvertently. The packages from the CentOS Storage SIG will by default provide the latest LTM release. The STM release is provided in addition, and needs an extra step to enable. I am not sure how we can handle this in other distributions (or also with the packages on d.g.o.). Niels
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@gluster.org http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
