On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 1:48 PM, Niels de Vos <ndevos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 12:25:42PM -0400, Shyam wrote:
> Or this one: https://review.gluster.org/15036
>
> This is backported to 3.8/10 and 3.11 and considering the size and impact of
> the change, I wanted to be sure that we are going to accept this across all
> 3 releases?
>
> @Du, would like your thoughts on this.
>
> @niels, @kaushal, @talur, as release owners, could you weigh in as well
> please.
>
> I am thinking that we get this into 3.11.1 if there is agreement, and not in
> 3.11.0 as we are finalizing the release in 3 days, and this change looks
> big, to get in at this time.
Given 3.11 is going to be a new release, I'd recommend to get this fix in (if we have time). https://review.gluster.org/#/c/17402/ is dependent on this one.
>
> Further the change is actually an enhancement, and provides performance
> benefits, so it is valid as a change itself, but I feel it is too late to
> add to the current 3.11 release.
Indeed, and mostly we do not merge enhancements that are non-trivial to
stable branches. Each change that we backport introduces the chance on
regressions for users with their unknown (and possibly awkward)
workloads.
The patch itself looks ok, but it is difficult to predict how the change
affects current deployments. I prefer to be conservative and not have
this merged in 3.8, at least for now. Are there any statistics in how
performance is affected with this change? Having features like this only
in newer versions might also convince users to upgrade sooner, 3.8 will
only be supported until 3.12 (or 4.0) gets released, which is approx. 3
months from now according to our schedule.
Niels
_______________________________________________
maintainers mailing list
maintainers@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
