Open Stack

On 12/29/2013 07:50 AM, Robert Collins wrote:
> On 29 December 2013 04:21, Day, Phil <philip.day at hp.com> wrote:
>> Hi Folks,
>>
>>
>>
>> I know it may seem odd to be arguing for slowing down a part of the review
>> process, but I’d like to float the idea that there should be a minimum
>> review period for patches that change existing functionality in a way that
>> isn’t backwards compatible.
> 
> What is the minimum review period intended to accomplish? I mean:
> everyone that reviewed this *knew* it changed a default, and that
> guest OS's that did support ext3 but don't support ext4 would be
> broken. Would you like to have seen a different judgement call - e.g.
> 'Because this is a backward breaking change, it has to go through one
> release of deprecation warning, and *then* can be made' ?
> 
> One possible reason to want a different judgment call is that the
> logic about impacted OS's was wrong - I claimed (correctly) that every
> OS has support for ext4, but neglected to consider the 13 year
> lifespan of RHEL...
> https://access.redhat.com/site/support/policy/updates/errata/ shows
> that RHEL 3 and 4 are both still supported, and neither support ext4.
> So folk that are running apps in those legacy environments indeed
> cannot move.

SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 11 comes with ext3 as default as well - and
does not include ext4 support, so this really a bad change for SLES,

Andreas
-- 
 Andreas Jaeger aj@{suse.com,opensuse.org} Twitter/Identica: jaegerandi
  SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
   GF: Jeff Hawn,Jennifer Guild,Felix Imendörffer,HRB16746 (AG Nürnberg)
    GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F  FED1 389A 563C C272 A126