Hi,
On checking yesterday's gluster meeting AIs and (later) reading the
minutes, for DHT2 here is what I gather and propose to do for $SUBJECT.
Feel free to add/negate any plans.
(This can also be discussed at [2])
---
1) Create
First of all my apologies for not going through the meeting blog before
sending my thoughts on how we plan to maintain GlusterD 2.0 [1].
This approach seems fine to me as long as we don't touch any existing
xlators. How do we handle cases where other xlators get impacted by
certain changes. Are we
On 10/09/2015 12:07 AM, Atin Mukherjee wrote:
First of all my apologies for not going through the meeting blog before
sending my thoughts on how we plan to maintain GlusterD 2.0 [1].
This approach seems fine to me as long as we don't touch any existing
xlators. How do we handle cases where other
My position is that we should maximize visibility for other developers by doing
all work on review.gluster.org. If it doesn't affect existing tests, it should
even go on master. This includes:
* Minor changes (e.g. list.h or syncop.* in http://review.gluster.org/#/c/8913/)
* Refactoring that
On 10/09/2015 11:26 AM, Jeff Darcy wrote:
My position is that we should maximize visibility for other developers by doing
all work on review.gluster.org. If it doesn't affect existing tests, it should
even go on master. This includes:
* Minor changes (e.g. list.h or syncop.* in http://review
On Friday 09 October 2015 10:39 PM, Shyam wrote:
On 10/09/2015 11:26 AM, Jeff Darcy wrote:
My position is that we should maximize visibility for other developers
by doing all work on review.gluster.org. If it doesn't affect
existing tests, it should even go on master. This includes:
* Minor c
> I wonder if glusterd2 could also be a different directory in
> experimental/. We could add a new configure option, say something like
> --enable-glusterd2, that compiles & installs glusterd2 instead of the
> existing glusterd. Thoughts?
It might be a bit painful. Firstly, anything that involves
In an effort to push this along, update the change with suggested edits
and comments till now, request a review and further comments so that we
make this official at some (sooner) point in time.
http://review.gluster.org/#/c/12321/2
___
Gluster-devel
Sending this along again.
- Are we decided on *experimental*?
- If so, what else needs attention in the patch below?
- (Re)views please... (views as in "What are your views on this?", not
"Have you viewed this?" ;) )
Shyam
On 10/12/2015 02:18 PM, Shyam wrote:
In an effort to push this along,
My 2 cents on this:
The decision we take on this should have certain rationale, and I see
two key things affecting that decision.
1. How much of the code we are planning to write now, is going to make
it to the final product. If we are sure that a sizeable amount of code
we are writing now, is
On 10/29/2015 01:42 AM, Avra Sengupta wrote:
My 2 cents on this:
The decision we take on this should have certain rationale, and I see
two key things affecting that decision.
1. How much of the code we are planning to write now, is going to make
it to the final product. If we are sure that a siz
On October 29, 2015 at 9:12:46 AM, Shyam (srang...@redhat.com) wrote:
> Will code that NSR puts up in master be ready to ship when 3.8 is
> branched?
Do we know when 3.8 will be branched?
> I ask the above, as I think we need a *process*, and not an open ended
> "put it where you want option", fo
On 10/29/2015 07:29 PM, Jeff Darcy wrote:
On October 29, 2015 at 9:12:46 AM, Shyam (srang...@redhat.com) wrote:
Will code that NSR puts up in master be ready to ship when 3.8 is
branched?
Do we know when 3.8 will be branched?
This is an example not absolute, what I mean is when the next rele
On October 29, 2015 at 8:42:50 PM, Shyam (srang...@redhat.com) wrote:
> I assume this is about infra changes (as the first 2 points are for
> some reason squashed in my reader). I think what you state is infra
> (or other non-experimental) code impact due to changes by
> experimental/inprogress cod
On 10/29/2015 10:26 PM, Jeff Darcy wrote:
On October 29, 2015 at 8:42:50 PM, Shyam (srang...@redhat.com) wrote:
I assume this is about infra changes (as the first 2 points are for
some reason squashed in my reader). I think what you state is infra
(or other non-experimental) code impact due to c
15 matches
Mail list logo
