On 9/23/13 10:07 AM, Ben Myers wrote: > 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. I was thinking the same thing. There's not a lot of risk other than potential oddities of i.e. 3.2.0-rc2 going to 4.0.0 w/ no 3.2.0 in between, but that's not really going to break anything. -Eric > -Ben > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
