On 8/17/13 10:25 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote: > On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Chris Mason <chris.ma...@fusionio.com> wrote: >> The problem with the progs release is I keep finding more things I want >> to add. My local git tree has about a dozen commits that I feel are >> important enough for v1.0. I just have to cut it, the distros and >> others are completely correct in asking for an official release. > > I know this feeling too well. > > In order to just "get something out", it might make sense to just do > some time-based releases every now and again (and maybe call them 0.X, > rather than 1.0 until you are happy). Even the occasional (maybe after > each kernel release) git tag (without actually creating tarballs etc) > would be very helpful, as at least we would have a common reference > point for bug reports and similar (and after all, numbers are cheap > ;-)). > > From your point of view, having frequent releases will also (I > suppose) be helpful as it will make sure your users/testers are using > the most recent version (at least in Arch, whatever you tag we will > ship within a few days) and hence you won't have to ask them to > rebuild from git to make sure the bug hasn't already been fixed. > >> In terms of the quality of the commits, I only put things into the >> master branch of the git tree that I have fully confidence in. > > Thanks for the info Chris, this is useful to know. I'll keep pushing > git snapshots then (but as I said, tags would be better).
>From my perspective, I don't want to push git snapshots; I'll fix one bug and add another. We desperately need btrfs-progs stabilization and release. -Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
