Hi Gordan, > >> Why wasn't this prioritised after such a disasterous bug? > > > > It could've been for any number of reasons ranging from problems with > > reproducing it, limited functionality for managing bug reports in > > Savannah to even the general constraints of being a commercial > > open-source project. > > > > Still, I understand your problems are more important to you than the > > problems being faced by other users, I'd so appreciate if you'd give our > > bugzilla-based setup a chance at handling this bug. Or, let me > > know if you've already filed a report. > > I'm not sure what Geoff's opinion on this is, but I don't think the > issue has been in the bug reporting mechanism. It looks more like > stability just wasn't deemed an important requirement until quite recently. I quite agree with you, Gordan. I've answered this original point of Shehjar's elsewhere, so I won't repeat my angry rant again. Geoff. On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, Gordan Bobic wrote: > Shehjar Tikoo wrote: > >>>> Finally - which translators are deemed stable (no know issues - > >>>> memory leaks/bloat, crashes, corruption, etc.)? > >>> > >>> We can definitely vouch for a higher degree of stability of the > >>> releases. Otherwise, I dont think there is any performance translator > >>> we can call completely stable/mature because of the roadmap we have > >>> for constantly upgrading algorithms, functionality, > >>> etc. > >> > >> When will the Gluster team be able to deliver a stable, mature, and > >> reliable version of GlusterFS? > > > > Continuing from what I said earlier, the fact that GlusterFS releases > > work in a stable manner is shown by the deployments among our > > customers. > > > > At the same time, are we satisfied with the experience of non-paying > > users? > > No. I accept there are bottlenecks in our processes. We > > acknowledge that and have been working on fixing them. > > I'm glad the issue of paying vs. non-paying customers has been brought > up. I have mentioned to some of the development team that I am not > averse to the idea of becoming a paying customer, but the enthusiasm for > encouraging this just didn't seem to be there. The two things I would > potentially be interested in are: > > 1) Specific bug-fix sponsorship > 2) Feature sponsorship > > From what I can tell, however, the developers' operating model isn't > geared up toward that. > > >> When will regression tests be used? It's been months now since this > >> bug, and still I don't see any sign of the use of this simple, > >> industry-standard technique to minimise the risk of such issues > >> slipping through again. > > > > I think the QA folks have done some really good work in stabilizing > > GlusterFS over the last year or so. The result is there to see in the > > 2.0.X releases. > > I have to say that up until 2.0.2, which works reasonably well, the path > from late 1.4.x that became 2.0.0qa1 up to and including 2.0.1 has been > more than a little dicey. That's a long time to stabilize a release. > > I think there needs to be a split between stable (bug fixes _ONLY_!) and > development releases (new/experimental features, redesign of parts of > the system such as format of xattr metadata, etc.). And the priority > should be given to stable release bug fixes under almost all > circumstances. That way those that want new features can decide for > themselves if the stability trade-off is worth it, and those of us who > are happy with a smaller feature set but require very high stability > don't have to suffer the instability caused by new and experimental > features. What seems to have happened since the 1.3/1.4 split, is that > support of the stable releases has been effectively dropped in favour of > pouring all development effort into 1.4->2.0 releases. This left the > users whose first priority is stability in a position where they cannot > seriously consider using the software in a production environment. > > >> Why wasn't this prioritised after such a disasterous bug? > > > > It could've been for any number of reasons ranging from problems with > > reproducing it, limited functionality for managing bug reports in > > Savannah to even the general constraints of being a commercial > > open-source project. > > > > Still, I understand your problems are more important to you than the > > problems being faced by other users, I'd so appreciate if you'd give our > > bugzilla-based setup a chance at handling this bug. Or, let me > > know if you've already filed a report. > > I'm not sure what Geoff's opinion on this is, but I don't think the > issue has been in the bug reporting mechanism. It looks more like > stability just wasn't deemed an important requirement until quite recently. > > Gordan > > > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-devel mailing list > Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
