----- Original Message ----- > From: "Andrew Beekhof" <and...@beekhof.net> > To: "The Pacemaker cluster resource manager" <pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org> > Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2013 7:42:22 PM > Subject: Re: [Pacemaker] Announce: Pacemaker 1.1.10 now available > > > On 08/08/2013, at 11:48 PM, Andrew Martin <amar...@xes-inc.com> > wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Andrew Beekhof" <and...@beekhof.net> > >> To: "The Pacemaker cluster resource manager" > >> <pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org> > >> Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2013 2:35:53 AM > >> Subject: Re: [Pacemaker] Announce: Pacemaker 1.1.10 now available > >> > >> > >> On 08/08/2013, at 5:13 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov > >> <bub...@hoster-ok.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> 26.07.2013 03:43, Andrew Beekhof wrote: > >>> > >>> ... > >>> > >>>> Release candidates for the next Pacemaker release (1.1.11) can > >>>> be > >>>> expected some time around Novemeber. > >>> > >>> Did you completely discard plan of releasing 2.0.0? > >> > >> Short answer, yes. > >> We're just going to continue doing 1.1.x releases for the > >> foreseeable > >> future. > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > >> > > Andrew, > > > > In that case, which releases should be considered very stable for > > production use? > > 1.1.x is what everyone should be using. > > There are extensive tests (520+ for the policy engine alone) that are > run every time we push to github for catching and preventing > regressions. > RHEL ships it, SLES ships it... if you want a version that goes > beyond what upstream provides (ie. backports and more testing), I'd > suggest one of those two vendors[1]. > > The basic problem is that upstream simply doesn't have the manpower > to manage the backporting and testing required for multiple release > series. > That job is best left to enterprise distros (or large companies like > NTT whose efforts are the only thing keeping 1.0.x alive). > > If someone wanted to pick a 1.1.x release and commit to replicating > NTT's efforts... that would not be discouraged. > > > [1] I would still recommend upstream releases over _rebuilds_ of RHEL > or SLES or whoever: > > 1. Upstream hasn't got the bandwidth to re-diagnose and re-fix bugs > in vendor specific releases of which we don't know all the details > 2. Even if the fix is trivial and well known, there is no way for > upstream to get it into the packages you're using > > tl;dr - Use the releases supplied by whoever is providing you with > support > _______________________________________________ > 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 > Andrew,
Thanks for the clarification. Are there plans to go through the same (longer) RC process for new 1.1.x releases going forward as was done for 1.1.10? Thanks, Andrew _______________________________________________ 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
