[torquedev] Proposed Patch

Joshua Bernstein jbernstein at penguincomputing.com
Tue Mar 16 12:16:04 MDT 2010



Chris Samuel wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 06:03:38 am Garrick Staples wrote:
> 
>> I whole-heartedly agree with this position.
> 
> Back in February Ken posted to the Torqueusers list on a thread about lots of 
> OK messages being logged, saying:
> 
> # 2.4.5 seems to be a pretty stable version. I would recommend moving
> # there. It has new features and it is where enhancements will be made
> # in the future. The 2.3.x branch will have bug fixes only.
> 
> Perhaps that's a good compromise position - that way 2.4 can get new features 
> and 2.3 can be the ultra-stable branch.  Then when 2.5 comes out it gets new 
> features and 2.4 goes into bug-fix only mode.

I'll agree with Chris here, and say that Ken's comments make a ton of sense. I 
think its important to keep a sort of "old stable" release and continue to put 
new features into 2.4. Its just important to be able to set expectations of the 
community consistency. While more internal testing via Adaptive is a good thing, 
it can't possibly match the different uses by the community. For example, would 
AC, thought of testing the qsub -I usage that Brock Palen pointed on on the 
users' list? They figured it "wouldn't break anything" but it turns out 
something did in fact change.

I guess that as long as the community continues to be involved with the test and 
release cycle, I'd be considered a happy camper. AC, has clearly made efforts 
over the past several months of focusing on TORQUE development.

-Joshua Bernstein
Penguin Computing


More information about the torquedev mailing list