[Pacemaker] Announce: Pacemaker 1.1.10 now available

[Andrew Beekhof]

On 10/08/2013, at 12:36 AM, 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 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?

Yes. I think that worked reasonably well and should be even better when _someone_ isnt try to get "one last change in before everything gets locked down" :)