[cdwg] [wc-discuss] Lustre 2.2.0 released

[Peter Jones]

Hi Chris

I think that this thread is going to turn rather process-oriented. 
Perhaps we should discuss this on the next CDWG call.

Peter

On 12-03-30 11:44 AM, Christopher J. Morrone wrote:
> It sounds to me like the decision to not mark the issue a blocker is 
> reasonable give the information I have seen (i.e., only and issue with 
> debug kernels).  While a panic is more likely to be a blocker, it 
> should not necessarily be a guarantee.  We do need to consider other 
> factors, and holding to our release schedule is important.
>
> It would be fairly easy to delay releases for untold months if a panic 
> automatically blocked releases.  A panic that will effect all 
> production users should obviously be a blocker.  A panic that only 
> effects a development environment with a debug kernel is not 
> automatically a blocker.
>
> I think that it would have been helpful to record that decision in the 
> ticket.  Otherwise the Alexey and the rest of us have little 
> visibility into the process, which can lead to unnecessary frustration.
>
> Chris
>
> On 03/30/2012 09:42 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
>> Alexey
>>
>> I am sorry if my explanation was not clear enough.
>>
>> The decision was taken to not classify this as a blocker because the 
>> issue only occurs when running kernel debug options.
>>
>> The engineers in the triage process considered this not to be a 
>> common scenario for production usage.
>>
>> As such it was decided it would be better to have the release be on 
>> time for the majority and know that anyone needing to run kernel 
>> debug options would be able to apply a simple patch to do so.
>>
>> The kind of logic applied to determining blockers for Lustre releases 
>> has been unchanged for many years.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Peter
> _______________________________________________
> cdwg mailing list
> cdwg at lists.opensfs.org
> http://lists.opensfs.org/listinfo.cgi/cdwg-opensfs.org
>

-- 
Peter Jones
Whamcloud, Inc.
www.whamcloud.com