<div dir="ltr">Thanks for the reminder. Just merged it. Mostly the release will happen today.<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Kaushal M <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kshlmster@gmail.com" target="_blank">kshlmster@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Pranith,<br>
<br>
This change [1] removing experimental xlators isn't merged yet. It<br>
should be taken in before you do your release.<br>
<br>
[1]: <a href="https://review.gluster.org/15750" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://review.gluster.org/<wbr>15750</a><br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Niels de Vos <<a href="mailto:ndevos@redhat.com">ndevos@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 04:52:29PM -0500, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote:<br>
>> On 11/10/2016 04:12 PM, Vijay Bellur wrote:<br>
>> > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Niels de Vos <<a href="mailto:ndevos@redhat.com">ndevos@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> > ><br>
>> > > The packages from the CentOS Storage SIG will by default provide the<br>
>> > > latest LTM release. The STM release is provided in addition, and needs<br>
>> > > an extra step to enable.<br>
>> > ><br>
>> > > I am not sure how we can handle this in other distributions (or also<br>
>> > > with the packages on d.g.o.).<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Maybe we should not flip the LATEST for non-RPM distributions in<br>
>> > d.g.o? or should we introduce LTM/LATEST and encourage users to change<br>
>> > their repository files to point to this?<br>
>><br>
>> I like having LATEST and LTM symlinks, but---<br>
>><br>
>> Did we decide that after 3.8 the next LTM release will be 3.10? (Or 4.0<br>
>> whenever that lands?) And an LTM release is maintained for 12 or 18 months?<br>
>><br>
>> If so there probably will be two active LTM releases, assuming we can ship<br>
>> the next releases on time.<br>
><br>
> Yes, and we have is documented (with diagrams!) on<br>
> <a href="https://www.gluster.org/community/release-schedule/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.gluster.org/<wbr>community/release-schedule/</a> , see the "Post-3.8"<br>
> section.<br>
><br>
>> We should have LTM-3.8 and eventually LTM-3.10 symlinks then. Or are there<br>
>> other ideas?<br>
>><br>
>> > Packaging in distributions would be handled by package maintainers and<br>
>> > I presume they can decide the appropriateness of a release for<br>
>> > packaging?<br>
>><br>
>> Indeed. Well, that's the status quo, and beyond our control in any event.<br>
><br>
> We should probably send out a reminder to the packaging list as that<br>
> should contain all known packagers for different distributions.<br>
> Including 3.9 in a distribution might be appropriate for some, as long<br>
> as the distribution/version goes EOL before our STM release.<br>
><br>
> Niels<br>
><br>
</div></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
> maintainers mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:maintainers@gluster.org">maintainers@gluster.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.gluster.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/maintainers</a><br>
><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">Pranith<br></div></div>
</div>