CDWG Minutes 2013-08-14
- Review Action Items from last meeting
- 2.5.0 development update (celebrate HSM landing/feature freeze)
- Discuss what do to about the time it takes to land patches
- John Forgan (Xyratex)
- Kit Westneat (DDN)
- Justin Miller (IU)
- Denis Kondratenko (Xyratex)
- Stephen Simms (IU)
- Peter Jones (Intel)
- James Simmons (ORNL)
- Nic Kenke (Xyratex)
- Chris Morrone (LLNL)
- Cory Spitz (Cray)
Review Action Items
Work begun. Chris to send semi-final version to CDWG mailing list to allow 24 hour commentary.
Next "scheduled maintenance release" branch
It was asked wether 2.7 or 2.8 will be the next "schedule maintence release" branch. It was suggested that given the shuffling between 2.4 and 2.5 based on desired feature set, it is probably too soon to make a decision between 2.7 and 2.8.
Question raised again about people who will continue using 2.4 for some time. Official answer: Talk to your support vendor about 2.4 support. Intel has advertised that they do intend to support their customers that choose to continue using 2.4. Officially, the community is shifting its attention to 2.5 as the longer term "scheduled maintenance release".
2.5.0 development update
Need to weed the list of tickets with 2.5.0 Fix Version/s. Peter suggests a week from now would be a good time. Bugs with shared 2.5.0 and 2.4.1 Fix Version will be closing soon, and get rid of some of the cruft.
Nik: Xyratex NRS policy - can that land as preview? Or is that a feature? Peter: Should not be a problem to land. We are not considering a policy a "feature".
2.5 compatibility with older releases
Discussion about what older releases 2.5 will remain compatible.
Peter pointed out that the plan of record was for 2.5 to only be tested and advertised as compatible with 2.4. He mentioned that if we had known earlier about 2.5 being the new "scheduled maintenance release" branch, we might have decided otherwise.
Concern was raised that by announcing 2.5 as the new longer term "scheduled maintenance release" branch, folks will expect to be able to upgrade from at least 2.1 to 2.5.
Question also raised about 1.8 clients being support with 2.5 servers. General agreement seemed to be that while we do not plan to intentionally remove 1.8 support, we do not intend to test that or to advertise that compatibility.
Enough questions were raised about the plan of record (2.5 only compatible with 2.4), that it seemed clear that many people wanted the support broadened. Peter was tasked to scope how much additional effort would be needed to add support for:
- upgrading 2.1 servers to 2.5
- support of 2.1 client from 2.5 servers
Time it takes to land a patch
Tickets needed attention: Simms: LU-3288 LU-3490
HPDD website: Guidelines about upstreaming patches. CDWG should set up wiki pages to explain process and describe escalation guidelines.
Denis used gerrit API to gather some information. Gerrit 2.6 has some new APIs that would be useful.
Jira tickets needing Intel attention
Stephen Simms raised two issues that needed quick attention, and are delaying progress on an OpenSFS contract:
- Scope the effort to upgrade servers from 2.1 to 2.5, 2.1 client to 2.5 server compatibility (Peter)
- Make wiki.opensfs.org page describing Lustre patch submission procedures (Chris, everyone)
- Look into quick resolution of LU-3288 and LU-3490 (Peter)