[lustre-discuss] New community release model and 2.5.3 (and 2.x.0) patch lists?

[Andrew Wagner]

This was made clear to us at the 2015 Lustre Users Group conference in 
Denver that just wrapped up yesterday. You can see the roadmap that was 
released here: 
http://cdn.opensfs.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Lustre_Development_Update_Morrone.pdf

Bug fixes and such will still be rolled up in the major releases that 
occur every six months, but the days of maintenance releases are over. 
We need to make sure that a group that tries out Lustre four months 
after a major release reveals a nasty bug have a clear path to resolving 
it for the version of Lustre they're using.

Andrew Wagner
Research Systems Administrator
Space Science and Engineering
University of Wisconsin
andrew.wagner at ssec.wisc.edu | 608-261-1360

On 04/16/2015 06:37 AM, E.S. Rosenberg wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 9:53 PM, Colin Faber <cfaber at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think in general this is a good idea.  As discussed at the OpenSFS board
>> meeting yesterday, it would be really nice for organizations which are
>> building custom releases themselves to provide this patch list as a wiki
>> page on the lustre.org wiki (http://wiki.lustre.org).
>>
>> This would probably be a good first step, maybe format in such as way to
>> include a brief description of the patch and the problem it's solving for
>> that site.
>>
>> I'm planning on doing this for my Org's release as well, so it's extremely
>> clear to anyone glancing at the site what we're doing and why we're doing
>> it.
>>
>> -cf
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Scott Nolin <scott.nolin at ssec.wisc.edu>
>> wrote:
>>> Since Intel will not be making community releases for 2.5.4 or 2.x.0
>>> releases now, it seems the community will need to maintain some sort of
>>> patch list against these releases.  Especially stability, data corruption,
>>> and security patches.
> Where/when was this announced?
> Thanks,
> Eli
>>> I think this is important so if people are trying a Lustre community
>>> release they need to be aware of any bugs that might exist, and if they're
>>> addressed. If things are unstable, lustre will (re)gain a negative
>>> reputation as a file system you should not trust with real data.
>>>
>>> I don't have any answers here, but would like to start a wider
>>> conversation.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Scott
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> lustre-discuss mailing list
>>> lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
>>> http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> lustre-discuss mailing list
>> lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
>> http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org
>>
> _______________________________________________
> lustre-discuss mailing list
> lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
> http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org