[Pacemaker] Reminder: Pacemaker-1.1.10-rc5 is out there

[Andrew Beekhof]

On 26/06/2013, at 7:30 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree <lmb at suse.com> wrote:

> On 2013-06-25T20:28:29, Andrew Beekhof <andrew at beekhof.net> wrote:
> 
>>> Perhaps a numbering scheme like the Linux kernel would fit better than a
>>> stable/unstable branch distinction. Changes that deserve the "unstable"
>>> term are really really rare (and I'm sure we've all learned from them),
>>> so it may be better to then just have a slightly longer test cycle for
>>> these.
>> What about the API changes?  
> 
> Distributions can take care of them when they integrate them; basically
> they'll trickle through until the whole stack the distributions ship
> builds again.

If we let 2.0.x be anything like 1.1.x, I suspect this would be rather difficult.

> I *was* surprised to find one of those in -rc5, though - the merged
> cluster glue code was something I'd have expected significantly earlier
> in a release cycle (and the API to be stable during the -rc phase,
> barring security issues or similar disasters).  ;-)

There was a couple, but are you talking about "cluster glue" or "cluster-glue"?

The change I'm thinking of (CPG codepaths and global variables) was becoming a major support overhead and all-round headache.
I hadn't planned to make that change, but it was the best way to fix a bug that was holding up the release.

Plus it is still my intention not to have API changes in 2.0.x, so better before than after.

> 
> Important is to of course keep the major/minor numbers of the libraries
> updated so one doesn't get runtime problems.

I have been quite diligent running ./bumplibs.sh in preparation for releases for a while now.