[cdwg] Lustre maintenance releases
Christopher J. Morrone
morrone2 at llnl.gov
Tue Jul 24 15:10:04 PDT 2012
On 07/24/2012 12:02 PM, Cory Spitz wrote:
> We seemed to reach a consensus that b2_4 ought to be designated as a
> maintenance branch after the initial 2.4 feature release. What I was
> trying to say over the phone was that if we do agree on that and if we
> nominally wait 3 months to spool up bugfixes to 2.4, it will arrive
> around Q2'13 if everything stays on-track.
I think that 2.4.0 at the end of March 2013 should be considered the
first maintenance release on the maintenance branch, not 2.4.1.
I would also argue that minor point releases should come as-needed
instead of every three months, especially at the beginning of the
branch's life. We may have 4 point releases in the first 3 months.
And that's over a year away
> from the original 2.1.x maintenance release and an awful lot of change
The first 2.1 maintenance release in my mind was 2.1.0, and 2.4.0 would
be exactly 18 months later.
> To recap, here is what I was thinking for the maintenance stream:
>
> 2012 2013
> Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
> 2.1.1 -> 2.1.2 -> 2.1.3
> 2.2
> 2.3 -> 2.3.1
> 2.4 -> 2.4.1 -> 2.4.2
> 2.5
>
> I think that the above agrees with what Chris has proposed for the short
> term, aside from the quick blip of 2.3.1.
I'm not sure if it is or not. You seem to be combining all development,
features, bug fixes, etc., into a single "maintenance stream". Maybe
that isn't what you meant to imply, but I think that would be quite
different than what I was suggesting. In the model I write about,
maintenance branches progress in parallel with each other and with the
development branch.
But if I read the picture another way, assuming that the 2.1 and 2.3
don't dead-end, then I think you've just got too many maintenance
branches. I don't think we really have the resources to have three
active maintenance branches (2.1, 2.3, and 2.4) at the same time.
Chris
More information about the cdwg
mailing list