From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 77E2C71269 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 14:25:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6B1FE25D93 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 14:25:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id F189425D88 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 14:25:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C09614463A for ; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 14:25:37 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <671afce4-d8b6-0870-5d42-8c40bb0aa3d3@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2021 14:25:06 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:92.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/92.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Proxmox VE development discussion , =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=c3=bcnbichler?= References: <20210907131755.1016175-1-s.ivanov@proxmox.com> <1631101918.e108vbagbz.astroid@nora.none> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <1631101918.e108vbagbz.astroid@nora.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 1.215 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment KAM_NUMSUBJECT 0.5 Subject ends in numbers excluding current years NICE_REPLY_A -2.332 Looks like a legit reply (A) 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] [RFC zfsonlinux 0/5] update to 2.1.1 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2021 12:25:38 -0000 On 08.09.21 13:53, Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler wrote: > On September 7, 2021 3:17 pm, Stoiko Ivanov wrote: >> This patchset updates our packaging for the changes of ZFS 2.1 >> >> Sending as RFC because: >> * I'm still not 100% sure my solution to the ABI-changes and updated >> package names is correct >> * It's based on the current tip of upstream's zfs-2.1.1-staging branch= , >> which yet needs to be tagged >=20 > I think I'd wait for the final 2.1.1 tag to prevent confusion unless we= =20 > have a good reason to go ahead with an in-between codebase? >=20 +1=20 I may have been a cause of this by telling Stoiko by mentioning that ther= e was some recent activity in the 2.1.1 staging branch, and that we may want to= wait out for - the intention for mentioning that may have got lost on the way.=