On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 08:39:31AM -0300, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote: >> On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 08:59:35AM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote: >> > The proposed Open vSwitch release schedule calls for branching 2.6 from >> > master on Aug. 1, followed by a period of bug fixes and stabilization, >> > with release on Sep. 15. The proposed release schedule is posted here >> > for review: >> > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/650319/ >> > >> > I don't yet know of a reason to modify this schedule. >> > >> > If you know of reasons to change it, now is an appropriate time to bring >> > it up for discussion. In addition, if you have features planned for 2.6 >> > that risk hitting master somewhat late for the branch, it is also a good >> > time to bring these up for discussion, so that we can plan to backport >> > them to the branch early on, or to delay the branch by a few days. >> >> I would like to see the rtnetlink patchset included. One of things >> that needs to happen before that is taking those decisions about >> netdev_open and the existence of conflicting port types with the same >> name. For example, a system interface and an interface in the database >> with the same name but a different type. >> >> I will post some comments on the discussion we already have opened for >> that. >> >> Just wanted to take the opportunity to mention this expectation of >> getting those into 2.6. > > For that feature, I need to defer to Jesse (added to the thread).
I think since there isn't yet a patch for this yet that is about ready to be applied, we'll need to make a call at the time the code is applied to master. If it's one day after we branch, sure that's fine; one day before release, obviously not; anything in the middle we'll need to decide. However, based on the code that has been sent out previously, I think this is mostly infrastructure at this point rather than user-visible changes. It would allow other features to be built on top of it but that would be a follow on change. If that's the case, is there any particular reason to try to get this in 2.6? _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
