Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 24 Aug 2011 19:02:20 +0200 | From | Jens Axboe <> | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL] drbd-8.4 for mainline |
| |
On 2011-08-24 18:00, Kyle Moffett wrote: > On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 10:41, Philipp Reisner > <philipp.reisner@linbit.com> wrote: >> Hi Jens, >> >> First the announcement of drbd-8.4, then the git pull-request text: >> >> We are proud to announce the availability of DRBD-8.4.0. >> >> The most noticeable change is the support for multiple replicated >> volumes in a single DRBD connection. >> Write-ordering is obeyed among all writes in all volumes in a >> single connection. >> This feature is really important for users who DRBD for mirroring >> over longer distances. (Protocol A). >> >> We do not only release DRBD-8.4.0 today: >> The DRBD User's Guide was reviewed and updated to match DRBD-8.4. >> >> I suggest to everybody who considers to upgrade from 8.3 to 8.4 >> to have a look at the "Recent changes" appendix of the UG: >> http://www.drbd.org/users-guide/ap-recent-changes.html >> >> This release brings a new meta-data format. Forward (8.3 -> 8.4) >> conversion happens complete seamless. Backward conversion >> is done by a single command (drbdadm apply-al res). >> >> This release is protocol compatible with all it predecessor. >> Although, we do not recommend to run it in 8.3 - 8.4 for long >> time frames. We recommend to use that capability only for the >> rolling upgrade. >> >> drbdadm of 8.4 can parse config files of 8.3. We recommend >> to switch to the new configuration syntax after the upgrade >> of both nodes. (Use drbdadm dump to learn about the new >> config syntax) > > Hm... > > That's a lot of patches (including some protocol changes) that have not > yet been reviewed by other kernel developers. > > By officially releasing the kernel and user-space bits and then posting > them to LKML and expecting them to be merged as-is, you are not really > following the linux kernel development process. > > Some of the reverts and commit messages make me concerned that your > patch series has bisection issues; are you sure it compiles and runs > after every patch? > > I'm obviously not anywhere in the maintenance chain for this code, but > it does look really funny.
That was my exact response a few weeks back, but I don't recall seeing anything until this email today. Philipp, has this been reviewed at all outside your internal group?
-- Jens Axboe
| |