Result of nixpkgs-review pr 99361 1

@ofborg test zfs.unstable

Maintainers: @jcumming @wizeman @fpletz @globin

@jonringer @clefru

Should this be backported (maybe after the 20.09 release)?

generally I would say no, but it's explicit about itself being unstable.

Seeing as most of the changes are bugfixes, I would say yes

Well, rc2 is part of 20.09 as the unstable version, so that decision seems to have been made already. ^^

I think that zfsUnstable inside the release branch exists because we also add new kernels to the release branch, and zfs (stable) was not that good in supporting new kernels, so people saw a need to use zfs unstable. That has changed, as the stable zfs branch is pretty good in support new kernels.

But yes, -rc3 should be backported, given the precedent with 2.0.0-rc1/rc2. The real question is what we do when 2.0.0 stable gets released :). Do we go back and make zfsUnstable track the zfs master branch?

@clefru In the past, zfs and zfsUnstable were just the same when there were no release candidates out. However, I expect there to be more beta updates in the future as OpenZFS wants to switch to a yearly release cycle.