Hi Wido, On 08/04/2016 08:35, Wido den Hollander wrote: > >> Op 7 april 2016 om 16:36 schreef Loic Dachary <loic@xxxxxxxxxxx>: >> >> >> Hi Sage, >> >> Here are the issues that would be in hammer v0.94.7 if we decided to release >> it now: http://tracker.ceph.com/versions/511 >> And here is the backport queue : >> http://tracker.ceph.com/projects/ceph/issues?query_id=78 >> >> Do you think it is time to cut the release and ask QE to start testing ? >> > > As this might be the last Hammer release I wonder if we could fix this bug: > http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/15348 This will not be the last hammer release. Once jewel is released, people will want to upgrade from hammer to jewel. This will uncover some problems (hopefully minor) that will need fixing and require a new hammer release. When jewel matures, more and more people will migrate to jewel: this will take a few months. Eventually, as it happened with firefly, the number of hammer clusters in production will be reduced and the bug reports regarding upgrade and operations will be reduced in proportion. At some point there won't be much incentive to publish a new hammer release and they will be less and less frequent. Until it's decided to just stop. In http://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/releases/ I estimated it will happen around november this year, give or take a few months. > I already submitted a PR for it: https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/8441 > > I backported it on a production cluster to Hammer and it works fine. Might be > something we can squeeze in? This is something you can certainly discuss with Yehuda :-) Cheers -- Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
