CDWG Minutes 2013-05-08: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with "Category:CDWG == Agenda == * 2.4 status updates * Chris's early thoughts on Tree Contract improvement process * Open discussion == Attendance == == Minutes ==") |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
== Attendance == | == Attendance == | ||
* Peter Jones (Intel) | |||
* Cory Spitz (Cray) | |||
* Nic Henke (Xyratex) | |||
* Justin Miller (IU) | |||
* Chris Morrone (LLNL) | |||
== Minutes == | == Minutes == | ||
=== 2.4 status updates === | |||
New 2.4 tag created yesterday, 2.3.65 | |||
Over the weekend Intel found a couple of other things, so no RC yet | |||
* 6 blockers currently | |||
needed to revert one change for performance reasons (from DDN, didn't | |||
catch ticket) | |||
* 3 have patches in review | |||
* 2 have patches in progress | |||
RC back on track for end of the week | |||
GA version hoped by end of month | |||
Issues found recently "subtle issues, and layout lock fallout" | |||
Question: 2.4 -> 2.3 fallback or 2.4 -> 1.8.9 fallback testing? | |||
Answer: roll back to something, latest previous 1.8.x or 2.x. Interop and | |||
fallback test plans progressing. | |||
Quota: Kernel quota is required in 2.4. Lustre still has "--enable-quota"? If so needs removal since quota always on. | |||
Proc regressions on master are an issue for LMT. | |||
=== Tree Contract === | |||
* Need to have CDWG sign off on releases | |||
** CDWG should have written list of requirements for release | |||
* "Branding" - Put releases on download.opensfs.org. | |||
* Currently have low visibility into test plan and schedule | |||
* Other organizations need time to test release candidates | |||
* Test plan needs to include a schedule for testing | |||
** and include testing activities from organizations outside of Intel | |||
==== Maintenance Releases ==== | |||
* Current issues | |||
** Some OpenSFS participants feel that they would like OpenSFS to have more involvement in Maintenance Releases. | |||
*** Through contract extension? | |||
*** Open discussion in CDWG? | |||
=== Action Items === | |||
* Chris to inquire about cost to get OpenSFS stake in the most current maintence branch CDWG (similar to current stake in master branch) | |||
* Notify Intel that CDWG plans to participate in final decision on tagging 2.4.0 release. | |||
Latest revision as of 16:42, 21 May 2013
Agenda
- 2.4 status updates
- Chris's early thoughts on Tree Contract improvement process
- Open discussion
Attendance
- Peter Jones (Intel)
- Cory Spitz (Cray)
- Nic Henke (Xyratex)
- Justin Miller (IU)
- Chris Morrone (LLNL)
Minutes
2.4 status updates
New 2.4 tag created yesterday, 2.3.65
Over the weekend Intel found a couple of other things, so no RC yet
- 6 blockers currently
needed to revert one change for performance reasons (from DDN, didn't catch ticket)
- 3 have patches in review
- 2 have patches in progress
RC back on track for end of the week
GA version hoped by end of month
Issues found recently "subtle issues, and layout lock fallout"
Question: 2.4 -> 2.3 fallback or 2.4 -> 1.8.9 fallback testing? Answer: roll back to something, latest previous 1.8.x or 2.x. Interop and fallback test plans progressing.
Quota: Kernel quota is required in 2.4. Lustre still has "--enable-quota"? If so needs removal since quota always on.
Proc regressions on master are an issue for LMT.
Tree Contract
- Need to have CDWG sign off on releases
- CDWG should have written list of requirements for release
- "Branding" - Put releases on download.opensfs.org.
- Currently have low visibility into test plan and schedule
- Other organizations need time to test release candidates
- Test plan needs to include a schedule for testing
- and include testing activities from organizations outside of Intel
Maintenance Releases
- Current issues
- Some OpenSFS participants feel that they would like OpenSFS to have more involvement in Maintenance Releases.
- Through contract extension?
- Open discussion in CDWG?
- Some OpenSFS participants feel that they would like OpenSFS to have more involvement in Maintenance Releases.
Action Items
- Chris to inquire about cost to get OpenSFS stake in the most current maintence branch CDWG (similar to current stake in master branch)
- Notify Intel that CDWG plans to participate in final decision on tagging 2.4.0 release.