2.1.99 vs. 2.1.6?

All your general support questions for OpenZFS on OS X.

2.1.99 vs. 2.1.6?

Postby rcfa » Tue Oct 25, 2022 4:23 am

I'm a bit confused: you had this 2.1.99 prereleasehttps://openzfsonosx.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=3677#p11676,
now we're on a 2.1.6rc2 https://openzfsonosx.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=3717

Are these different development branches, or how do these two compare relative to each other in terms of underlying upstream code and other functionality???

Obviously the 2.1.6rc2 is newer, so it would seem like the default to install, but 2.1.99 is "higher" so it would indicate next level development branch towards the 2.2 release or something like that.

Also, there seem to be no intel binaries for 2.1.6rc2. Are we supposed to install the Big Sur one on Ventura, on an intel platform?
rcfa
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 6:01 am

Re: 2.1.99 vs. 2.1.6?

Postby Jimbo » Tue Oct 25, 2022 5:52 am

Think of ".99" as "testing", so "2.1.testing", but agreed, it is a bit confusing.

There are RC2 Intel packages Catalina/Big Sur - these should install on Ventura. I think the only differences would be some minor build optimisations, but I'll let @lundman speak to that.

If once the RCs are done with and we end up with a release build, hopefully we'll end up with macOS release specific builds, but again, the differences from the Catalina/Big Sur builds are likely to be minor/cosmetic.

Cheers!
Jimbo
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 5:12 am

Re: 2.1.99 vs. 2.1.6?

Postby lundman » Tue Oct 25, 2022 4:47 pm

Yeah the development build is 2.1.99 and really I should have tagged it 2.1.3 or whatever we were on at the time, and never release 2.1.99. Ie only for special test cases. Only forum releases with 2.1.99 exists, not official releases, but I am not happy about it either.

What can we do, any suggestions?
User avatar
lundman
 
Posts: 1335
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 2:05 pm
Location: Tokyo, Japan

Re: 2.1.99 vs. 2.1.6?

Postby jawbroken » Wed Oct 26, 2022 5:27 am

Any reason not to just tag the next release as 2.2.0 and avoid the confusion?
jawbroken
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2015 4:46 am

Re: 2.1.99 vs. 2.1.6?

Postby lundman » Wed Oct 26, 2022 4:18 pm

This is Upstream/Linux version 2.1.6. So if we call it 2.2.0 what do we do when they tag 2.2.0 ?

Should we follow their version, so 2.1.6 is globally the same, or should be track our own, ie, our 2.2.6 is Linux 3.1.8 etc?
User avatar
lundman
 
Posts: 1335
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 2:05 pm
Location: Tokyo, Japan

Re: 2.1.99 vs. 2.1.6?

Postby cgiard » Wed Oct 26, 2022 9:46 pm

Maybe mac dev should use (upstream-0.0.1).(mac_revision)?

N/M, just saw the other thread where 4 positions isn’t allowed. :(
cgiard
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2014 8:10 am

Re: 2.1.99 vs. 2.1.6?

Postby jawbroken » Thu Oct 27, 2022 4:04 am

Ah, didn't realise that the version numbers were aligned. That makes things trickier.
jawbroken
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2015 4:46 am


Return to General Help

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 25 guests