25 Mar
2021
25 Mar
'21
8:55 p.m.
I don't know anything about the .tar.gz, but I can speak to the tags...
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 2:38 PM Kaleb Keithley <kkeithle(a)redhat.com> wrote:
I never did get a satisfactory answer about why the
v16.1.0 tag was made back in January without a matching .../tarballs/ceph-16.1.0.tar.gz. I
kept getting long winded explanations — digressions — about "the release,"
(meaning the GA I guess?) which I wasn't asking about.
I created the v17.0.0 and v16.1.0 tags because we branched off
development for pacific stable, and I needed the versions to reflect
that. The version in the pacific branched needed to be < than the
master branch version for upgrade to behave, the major portion (16,
17) of the version needed to agree with the ceph_release file, and so
on. Those tags didn't correspond to any "release" per se.
AFAICT since at least jewel, there's been a
matching tar.gz for every vX.1.z tag (and every vX.2.z tag too, but let's not muddy
the waters.)
And what tag is it now that corresponds to the ceph-16.1.0 packages? IMO it kinda
violates POLA that the v16.1.0 tag has no relationship whatsoever to the RC.
This was just a bit of a mix-up because of the above. When David did
the pacific build off of the branch tip last week he used 16.1.0
because he didn't realize that tag already existed, and for an rc it
didn't seem worth repeating the build.
HTH!
s