[389-users] 1.2.11.29 prediction?

[Rich Megginson]

On 04/03/2014 09:30 AM, Michael Gettes wrote:
> On Apr 3, 2014, at 11:13 AM, Rich Megginson <rmeggins at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> On 04/03/2014 08:53 AM, Michael Gettes wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I recognize 389 is a community project and asking for timelines can be problematic.  Right now, I am sorta stuck between a rock and a hard place.  In production, I am on 1.2.11.15 which has problems that are fixed by 1.2.11.28.  I have 1.2.11.28 in test and fixes all my prod problems but introduces a new problem which makes it rather difficult to manage the environment and it would appear this will be corrected in 1.2.11.29.
>> What is the new problem?
> The new problem is what I reported in 47758 which crashes my master servers using the console.  the ticket got closed out as a duplicate as you guys understand the problem and it would appear it will be corrected in .29.

And that problem is entirely due to running "bleeding edge" software - a 
new patch/feature urgently requested to be in EL6.6 that we didn't 
completely backport to epel6.  If you were running the standard 
389-ds-base in EL6.5 you would not have seen this issue. The 389-ds-base 
in epel6 contains patches intended for EL6.6 but which have not yet been 
fully tested.  The only way you could get into a real bind is if you 
have run into an issue due to be fixed in EL6.6 that you urgently need 
and can't wait for it to be released through the usual EL6.6 channels.

>
>> Note that for EL6, you should really use the version provided by the OS.  The "epel6" packages are really for "bleeding edge" testing of new features/patches.  However, if there is some feature in the "epel6" packages that you require, that is not in the OS packages, then I guess you'll just have to keep using the "epel6" packages indefinitely.
> ok.
>
>>> So, I am a little curious as to when we might see 29.  I do see on the roadmap 29 has 4 closed and 5 active but no date set.
>>>
>>> I’m wondering if anyone would want to out on a limb and guesstimate - are we thinking days or a couple of weeks or several weeks or any estimate would be so appreciated.  No, I will not hold anyone to anything - I can’t.  I’m just trying to gauge things for internal planning estimates recognizing I have no control over this process.  (yeah, i know, so why bother?  cuz, i have to try).
>>>
>>> Lastly, although I am on RHEL6 and have RHEL support, I don’t have RHEL DS support.  I find the 389 community generally excellent.  I have been trying to keep to what’s available in the repo but, as it would appear, I am now going to have to go with what’s available by source.
>> I'm not sure what you mean by "what's available in the repo" vs. "what's available by source”.
> ya know, i am not really sure either.  but you’re response reinforces in my mind that something weird is going on here and i have to have a chat with my sysadmins as to why i am not seeing what i should be seeing in the EPEL repos - we have firewall stuff means I am not in full control of how i get stuff.  OR, i just go with source for 29 when it comes out and wait for the OS dist to catch up.  That might be the path of least resistance, but i think i still need to resolve my EPEL issues with my sysadmins.

What is it exactly that you are not seeing in the EPEL repos that you 
are expecting to see?

>
>>> So, if I go with the source route for maintenance… should I move from the 1.2.11 line to 1.3.1?  I am not sure I fully appreciate the differences.
>> In general, I would suggest don't upgrade to a new major version unless you absolutely need to.
> so with this advice, i am reading i should stay on the 1.2.11 line and fix my EPEL issues.
>
> THANK YOU!
>
> /mrg
> --
> 389 users mailing list
> 389-users at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users