It seems to me that this is all stemming from the same old fundamental
confusion between a release and a distribution. I think everyone
would be better served by a process where individual maintainers were
responsible for releasing tarballs of their packages, with schedules
coordinated toward an
I think everyone
would be better served by a process where individual maintainers were
responsible for releasing tarballs of their packages, with schedules
coordinated toward an overall openfabrics release
For what it's worth, I agree with this approach.
- Sean
So you need to be able to
tell the difference between a customer running libibverbs-1.0.4 from
OFED-1.3-beta1 and libibverbs-1.0.4 from OFED-1.3 final.
I don't really think we want customers to run beta code, or
intend to support
such configurations.
But we still need to tell the
I don't really think we want customers to run beta code
What's the point of a beta then??
Donnu.
In previous OFED releases, we had release candidates rather
than beta.
Openfabrics members were running RCs and reporting issues on
the list and in
bugzilla. Do you really ask your
I think it's easy enough to make the revision of the RPMS be something
like -0.1.2007-07-17.1 or something like that.
OK, so you say just ignore the content and stick a date in there?
Fine, that'll work, and we can cover the RCs this way too I think.
I just meant to add a revision
On Wed, 2007-07-18 at 00:09 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Quoting Roland Dreier [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Subject: Re: [ofa-general] Re: RFC OFED-1.3 installation
I don't really think we want customers to run beta code
What's the point of a beta then??
Donnu.
In previous OFED
