On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 5:11 PM, Raghavendra G <raghavendra@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I think you can use the same github issue id and don't need a bug here since it's a feature?
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 4:49 PM, Raghavendra Gowdappa <rgowdapp@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Shyam Ranganathan" <srangana@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Gluster Devel" <gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "GlusterFS Maintainers" <maintainers@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 9:49:51 PM
> Subject: Re: [Gluster-Maintainers] Release 4.0: Branched
>
> On 01/23/2018 03:17 PM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote:
> > 4.0 release has been branched!
> >
> > I will follow this up with a more detailed schedule for the release, and
> > also the granted feature backport exceptions that we are waiting.
> >
> > Feature backports would need to make it in by this weekend, so that we
> > can tag RC0 by the end of the month.
>
> Backports need to be ready for merge on or before Jan, 29th 2018 3:00 PM
> Eastern TZ.
>
> Features that requested and hence are granted backport exceptions are as
> follows,
>
> 1) Dentry fop serializer xlator on brick stack
> https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs/issues/397
>
> @Du please backport the same to the 4.0 branch as the patch in master is
> merged.
Sure.But this might fail smoke as the bug associated is not associated with 4.0 branch. Blocked on 4.0 version tag in bugzilla.
>
> 2) Leases support on GlusterFS
> https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs/issues/350
>
> @Jiffin and @ndevos, there is one patch pending against master,
> https://review.gluster.org/#/c/18785/ please do the needful and backport
> this to the 4.0 branch.
>
> 3) Data corruption in write ordering of rebalance and application writes
> https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs/issues/308
>
> @susant, @du if we can conclude on the strategy here, please backport as
> needed.
https://review.gluster.org/#/c/19207/
Review comments need to be addressed and centos regressions are failing.
https://review.gluster.org/#/c/19202/
There are some suggestions on the patch. If others agree they are valid, this patch can be considered as redundant with approach of #19207. However, as I've mentioned in the comments there are some tradeoffs too. So, Waiting for response to my comments. If nobody responds in the time period given, we can merge the patch and susant will have to backport to 4.0 branch.
>
> 4) Couple of patches that are tracked for a backport are,
> https://review.gluster.org/#/c/19223/
> https://review.gluster.org/#/c/19267/ (prep for ctime changes in later
> releases)
>
> Other features discussed are not in scope for a backports to 4.0.
>
> If you asked for one and do not see it in this list, shout out!
>
> >
> > Only exception could be: https://review.gluster.org/#/c/19223/
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Shyam
> > _______________________________________________ > maintainers mailing list
> > Gluster-devel mailing list
> > Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
> >
> _______________________________________________
> maintainers@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
>
_______________________________________________
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
--Raghavendra G
_______________________________________________
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
