CDWG Minutes 2013-05-08: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
|||
Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
* Current issues | * 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 === | === Action Items === |
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.