On 11/10/2016 11:01 AM, Vijay Bellur wrote:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Shyam <srangana@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 11/10/2016 10:21 AM, Vijay Bellur wrote:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Manikandan Selvaganesh
<manikandancs333@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Given that we are done with the last release in 3.6.x, I think there
would be users looking to upgrade. My vote is to include the
necessary patches in 3.9 and not let users go through unnatural
workflows to get quota working again in 3.9.0.
<Comment is without knowing if the necessary patches are good to go>
Consider this a curiosity question ATM,
3.9 is an LTM, right? So we are not stating workflows here are set in stone?
Can this not be an projected workflow?
3.9 is a STM release as per [1].
Sorry, I meant STM.
Irrespective of a release being LTM or not, being able to upgrade to a
release without operational disruptions is a requirement.
I would say upgrade to an STM *maybe* painful, as it is an STM and hence
may contain changes that are yet to be announced stable or changed
workflows that are not easy to upgrade to. We do need to document them
though, even for the STM.
Along these lines, the next LTM should be as stated, i.e "without
operational disruptions". The STM is for adventurous folks, no?
I was referring to the upgrade workflow in my previous email. I seem
to be having a dense moment and am unable to comprehend your question
about workflows. Can you please re-phrase that for me?
No, I guess there were a few confusing remarks in my response. I hope
additional responses above make this more clear or at least intent that
I see with an STM more clear.
Thanks!
Vijay
[1] https://www.gluster.org/community/release-schedule/
_______________________________________________
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
