xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfsprogs/xfsdump release process

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: xfsprogs/xfsdump release process
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:20:04 -0500
Cc: Felix Blyakher <felixb@xxxxxxx>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Mike Frysinger <vapier@xxxxxxxxxx>, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <49A2F933.3090308@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <200902221348.51905.vapier@xxxxxxxxxx> <20090223072207.GA4112@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <DCA2D97E-F9A4-4A9E-BC39-CFFF1D0AD2CD@xxxxxxx> <200902231125.44076.vapier@xxxxxxxxxx> <FF190F30-2ECF-49D7-B63F-EF65C076EC7A@xxxxxxx> <49A2F933.3090308@xxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 01:29:55PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Just FWIW, Fedora does similar.  Changing md5sums on a released,
> versioned tarball could set off all sorts of worries for distributions,
> in general...

Yeah.  Guys, what about declaring the 3.0.0 releases officially botched
and get 3.0.1 out next week?  That should include all the small fixes
we have out now and whatever small stuff comes up from distros trying
to use it.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>