On 10/25/2016 12:11 PM, Niels de Vos wrote: > 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 Those aren't really very realistic RPM NVRs IMO. > > So, at least for RPM packaging, 3.9rc2 is recommended, and 3.9.0rc2 is > problematic. That's not the only thing recommended. Last I knew, one of several things that are recommended is, e.g., 3.9.0-0.2rc2; 3.9.0-1 > 3.9.0-0.2rc2. The RC (and {qa,alpha,beta}) packages (that I've) built for Fedora for several years have had NVRs in that form. This scheme was what was suggested to me on the fedora-devel mailing list several years ago. When RCs are tagged as 3.9rc1, then I have to make non-trivial and counter-intuitive changes to the .spec file to build packages with NVRs like 3.9.0-0.XrcY. If they are tagged 3.9.0rc1 then the changes much more straight forward and much simpler. -- Kaleb
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
