[Pacemaker] Announce: Pacemaker 1.1.10 now available

[Andrew Martin]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andrew Beekhof" <andrew at beekhof.net>
> To: "The Pacemaker cluster resource manager" <pacemaker at oss.clusterlabs.org>
> Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2013 7:42:22 PM
> Subject: Re: [Pacemaker] Announce: Pacemaker 1.1.10 now available
> 
> 
> On 08/08/2013, at 11:48 PM, Andrew Martin <amartin at xes-inc.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Andrew Beekhof" <andrew at beekhof.net>
> >> To: "The Pacemaker cluster resource manager"
> >> <pacemaker at oss.clusterlabs.org>
> >> Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2013 2:35:53 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [Pacemaker] Announce: Pacemaker 1.1.10 now available
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On 08/08/2013, at 5:13 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov
> >> <bubble at hoster-ok.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> 26.07.2013 03:43, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> ...
> >>> 
> >>>> Release candidates for the next Pacemaker release (1.1.11) can
> >>>> be
> >>>> expected some time around Novemeber.
> >>> 
> >>> Did you completely discard plan of releasing 2.0.0?
> >> 
> >> Short answer, yes.
> >> We're just going to continue doing 1.1.x releases for the
> >> foreseeable
> >> future.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker at oss.clusterlabs.org
> >> http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
> >> 
> >> Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
> >> Getting started:
> >> http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
> >> Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
> >> 
> > Andrew,
> > 
> > In that case, which releases should be considered very stable for
> > production use?
> 
> 1.1.x is what everyone should be using.
> 
> There are extensive tests (520+ for the policy engine alone) that are
> run every time we push to github for catching and preventing
> regressions.
> RHEL ships it, SLES ships it... if you want a version that goes
> beyond what upstream provides (ie. backports and more testing), I'd
> suggest one of those two vendors[1].
> 
> The basic problem is that upstream simply doesn't have the manpower
> to manage the backporting and testing required for multiple release
> series.
> That job is best left to enterprise distros (or large companies like
> NTT whose efforts are the only thing keeping 1.0.x alive).
> 
> If someone wanted to pick a 1.1.x release and commit to replicating
> NTT's efforts... that would not be discouraged.
> 
> 
> [1] I would still recommend upstream releases over _rebuilds_ of RHEL
> or SLES or whoever:
> 
> 1. Upstream hasn't got the bandwidth to re-diagnose and re-fix bugs
> in vendor specific releases of which we don't know all the details
> 2. Even if the fix is trivial and well known, there is no way for
> upstream to get it into the packages you're using
> 
> tl;dr - Use the releases supplied by whoever is providing you with
> support
> _______________________________________________
> Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker at oss.clusterlabs.org
> http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
> 
> Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
> Getting started:
> http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
> Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
> 
Andrew,

Thanks for the clarification. Are there plans to go through the same (longer) 
RC process for new 1.1.x releases going forward as was done for 1.1.10?

Thanks,

Andrew