On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:05:38AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 08:18:58AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 02:40:02AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 01:35:53PM -0600, Rich Johnston wrote: > > > > Alpha version 3.2.0-alpha2 of xfsprogs has been released. > > > > > > So what issues keep us issueing alpha release instead of making a proper > > > .0 release? > > > > There's still things to fix in xfs_repair before we do a full > > release. Run xfs/291 recently? > > Works fine for me on v4 super blocks, which is what I mostly care about > for now as that's what is in the field. And we haven't sent fixed > for our existing installed base out for over 6 month now. [ sorry for taking so long to reply - I missed this email, so thatnks to Eric for pointing it out ot me this morning ] I don't think that releasing with known deficiencies is a very good idea. Perhaps it would be best to release a 3.1.12 with all the relevant bugs fixes backported from the master branch to it? I'm happy to create a 3.1-stable branch in the repository branched off at the relevant point in the commit stream so we can host a 3.12 release, but I don't really have time to do any of the identification and backporting of patches for such a release. Hence, if you want to identify the commit to branch from and provide a backport series of patches for a 3.12 release, then I think we can do a stable release in short turn-around time. Would that approach alleviating your concerns? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
