On 2013-06-25T20:28:29, Andrew Beekhof <and...@beekhof.net> wrote: > > Perhaps a numbering scheme like the Linux kernel would fit better than a > > stable/unstable branch distinction. Changes that deserve the "unstable" > > term are really really rare (and I'm sure we've all learned from them), > > so it may be better to then just have a slightly longer test cycle for > > these. > What about the API changes?
Distributions can take care of them when they integrate them; basically they'll trickle through until the whole stack the distributions ship builds again. I *was* surprised to find one of those in -rc5, though - the merged cluster glue code was something I'd have expected significantly earlier in a release cycle (and the API to be stable during the -rc phase, barring security issues or similar disasters). ;-) Important is to of course keep the major/minor numbers of the libraries updated so one doesn't get runtime problems. Regards, Lars -- Architect Storage/HA SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) "Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde _______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org