From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31AFE1FF179 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2025 17:00:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 1C2D011781; Wed, 26 Nov 2025 17:00:31 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <70b51679-4f18-44e8-9578-e64c79509c40@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2025 17:00:26 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta To: Proxmox VE development discussion , "DERUMIER, Alexandre" References: <20251121141446.349501-1-g.goller@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1764172790037 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.022 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH frr 0/2] Bump FRR to 10.4.1 X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" Am 26.11.25 um 13:58 schrieb Gabriel Goller: > On 25.11.2025 16:53, DERUMIER, Alexandre via pve-devel wrote: >> Hi, >> >> 10.4.2 has been released last week. > > I don't think so? At least I can't see the tag on github... > >> be carefull with frr updates, from my experience they are always to a >> lot of bugs && regression when new major version is release, >> and sometime it take weeks to triggers specific bugs in production. >> (and even more to debug) > > Yeah, that's exactly why I want to release every minor FRR version > (while staying one release behind). This approach should minimize > the impact when a major version is released. The big issue with PVE > 8.5 was jumping from FRR 8 to 10 -- that's two major versions at > once, which caused many problems. I believe it's better to do > frequent small updates where issues are discovered quickly, rather > than large yearly updates where many problems surface at once. > > What do you think about this? > > That said, I understand your concerns. We've also seen FRR being > quite unstable lately with many regressions in recent releases. The > maintainers have told me this should improve going forward. > >> and frr still maintain 10.2 branch for example (10.2.5). >> >> >> Personnaly, for my pve9 production, I'll pin my frr version to 10.2, >> because I don't have time to retest new version each 6 months. > > Pinning is always possible and something the user can do. Maybe we > should create a official "guide" or article on how pin in case of > critical network bugs. > Obviously the newer features (e.g. fabrics) won't work. > > I don't know how we handle other upstream dependencies that are critical > yet optional? @Thomas? We do not have many of those. But in general I agree with releasing more often and in smaller increments being the better way almost all of the time. Version pinning is not something I'd heavily promote, but having an article/how-to that describes how it could be done and what one needs to watch out for makes definitively sense, as sometimes it's just the fastest and simplest stop-gap. _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel