Hi Gents, On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 09:04:30AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 9/23/13 7:26 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 08:38:55AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 03:56:37PM -0500, Ben Myers wrote: > >>> xfsprogs: update version for 3.2.0-alpha1 > >> > >> I'd say this is a major feature and infrastructure > >> update across the entire xfsprogs package, and in that case a > >> PKG_MAJOR bump is warranted, not PKG_MINOR. > >> > >> i.e. We're shooting for a 4.0 release, not 3.2... > > > > I tend to disagree with the 4.0 bump. > > > > 2.0 was when the new xattr ABI was introduced, and 3.0 was when we > > pulled fsr over from xfsdump to xfsprogs as well as drastically reducing > > the amount of installed headers. > > > > While the v5 support is a major internal change I think 3.2 would fit > > better for this. > > *shrug* TBH I Don't care a whole lot. Externally for old users in theory > it shouldn't be a big change. But internally it's huge, and it enables > a new disk format, so ... well, I don't want to bikeshed it too much. > > I'd mostly like to see _something_ w/ a version number on it so distros > can easily start to pick it up in testing repos. I have no strong preference... there are plenty of letters in the alphabet. > > I'd also be tempted to just cut 3.2.0 instead of an alpha version - just > > keep the v5 support experimental, maybe under a configure option. > > But so many changes are already made throughout the codebase, I think firing > off a point release with half-baked V5 support seems weird at this point. > > IOWs, aside from the V5 work I'm not sure anything merits a point release. I do tend to agree with Eric that it is a good idea to do an alpha release though. A configure option is an intersting idea too, but that's not how it's coded today. Right now it's just a very loud warning when you create a filesystem with crc=1. That's probably good enough. How about we just do a 3.2 alpha now to get something out there, and if after all the painting is finished and y'all still want a 4.0 bump, we'll do one. ;) The major constraint being... we don't want to go backward. -Ben _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
