On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 07:51:47AM -0400, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote: > On 10/25/2016 06:46 AM, Atin Mukherjee wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Aravinda <avishwan@xxxxxxxxxx > > <mailto:avishwan@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > Since Automated test framework for Gluster is in progress, we need > > help from Maintainers and developers to test the features and bug > > fixes to release Gluster 3.9. > > > > In last maintainers meeting Shyam shared an idea about having a Test > > day to accelerate the testing and release. > > > > Please participate in testing your component(s) on Oct 27, 2016. We > > will prepare the rc2 build by tomorrow and share the details before > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Test day. > > > > RC1 Link: > > http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/maintainers/2016-September/001442.html > > <http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/maintainers/2016-September/001442.html> > > > > > > I don't think testing RC1 would be ideal as 3.9 head has moved forward > > with significant number of patches. I'd recommend of having an RC2 here. > > > > BTW, please tag RC2 as 3.9.0rc2 (versus 3.9rc2). It makes building > packages for Fedora much easier. > > I know you were following what was done for 3.8rcX. That was a pain. :-} Can you explain what the problem is with 3.9rc2 and 3.9.0? The huge advantage is that 3.9.0 is seen as a version update to 3.9rc2. When 3.9.0rc2 is used, 3.9.0 is *not* an update for that, and rc2 packages will stay installed until 3.9.1 is released... You can check this easily with the rpmdev-vercmp command: $ rpmdev-vercmp 3.9.0rc2 3.9.0 3.9.0rc2 > 3.9.0 $ rpmdev-vercmp 3.9rc2 3.9.0 3.9rc2 < 3.9.0 So, at least for RPM packaging, 3.9rc2 is recommended, and 3.9.0rc2 is problematic. Thanks, Niels > > 3.7 and 3.6 were all 3.X.0betaY or 3.X.0qaY. > > If for some reason 3.9 doesn't get released soon, I'll need to package > the RC to get 3.9 into Fedora 25 before its GA and having a packaging > friendly tag will make it that much easier for me to get that done. > > (See the community packaging matrix I sent to the mailing lists and/or > at > http://gluster.readthedocs.io/en/latest/Install-Guide/Community_Packages/) > > N.B. This will serve as the email part of the RC tagging discussion > action item I have. > > Thanks. > > > -- > > Kaleb > _______________________________________________ > maintainers mailing list > maintainers@xxxxxxxxxxx > http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
