[torquedev] Proposed Patch
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.
More information about the torquedev