[Twg] [Rpwg] Ideas for consideration

[Christopher J. Morrone]

I'll just prefix this by saying that the original suggestions were 
devised before Oracle's latest changes.  Once the dust settles, we can 
reevaluate some of the details.

On 01/07/2011 07:44 AM, David Dillow wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-01-07 at 10:06 -0500, James A Simmons wrote:
>>
>>> 1)  Create a branch named "2.0.59.0-opensfs" on github, which is based
>>> at Oracle's 2.0.59.0 tag.  This is a "pre-release" version on the
>>> branch that will be tagged 2.1 by Oracle in the next few months.
>>
>> Or we could use
>>
>> https://github.com/rread/lustre
>>
>> We should avoid having multiple lustre branches on github.
>
> I disagree -- there should be a canonical OpenSFS source, independent of
> a particular person's tree. The beauty of git is its ability to pull
> from multiple trees and handle many branches.
>
> You have a point considering customer confusion, but I think that is
> solved by prominent linking to the "blessed" tree -- just as in the
> kernel, there is one main tree, and people can do their development in
> their own, possibly public, trees.

I am with you on this.  The blessed tree should not be under a single 
user's account.

As long as that blessed/primary tree is well publicized, I see no 
problem with many people having their own clone of lustre on github or 
anywhere else.  In fact, it can be quite useful.  Someone developing a 
new feature can have their commits in their own branch, own repo, but 
still be public and allow everyone to see what they are doing.

>>> 2)  We create a "opensfs-devel" mailing list, where Lustre developers
>>> and testers can communicate and coordinate their efforts.
>>
>> Yes please do. My experince is that this list usually becomes the main
>> list where everyone post to. We talked about having one main mailing
>> list before. This could easily fill in that gap.
>
> I like the idea of open mailing lists, but I thought the idea was that
> we'd use lustre-devel as long is it remained viable?

My thinking was that opensfs-devel would be to discuss the specifics of 
the opensfs release (which at the time, was based off of Oracle's 
cannonical release), things that the broader community would not care about.

I too would prefer to keep general development discussions in one place 
at lustre-devel.