Re: hammer 0.94.10 QE status

[Gregory Farnum <gfarnum@redhat.com>]

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Nathan Cutler <ncutler@suse.cz> wrote:
>> I've no idea what's broken there, so eg more valgrind failures are not
>> a big deal, but if the upgrade itself is failing in some way that's
>> going to be a problem. o_O
>
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> Let me try to clarify :-)
>
> If someone reports problems upgrading their firefly cluster to hammer, and
> the problem is in firefly, will we publish a new firefly release?
>
> If someone reports problems upgrading their dumpling cluster to firefly, and
> the problem is in dumpling, will we publish a new dumpling release?

Probably not. But, we do know that upgrades work now and so any new
failures must be a failure of the new version of Hammer. That, we
would hopefully avoid releasing, and would definitely issue a fix
release for. :) We can't strand users!

>
> I don't know the answer to those questions, but such a release -- if
> published -- would be "out-of-band" with regard to what is written in
> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/blob/master/doc/releases.rst#understanding-the-release-cycle
> - in particular this:
>
> "Every other stable releases is a LTS (Long Term Stable) and will receive
> updates until two LTS are published. For instance Dumpling is retired when
> Hammer is published, Firefly is retired when Jewel is published etc."
>
> Nathan