On 11/02/2015 23:24, Yuri Weinstein wrote: > I replied to individual suites runs, but just wanted to summarize QE validation status. > > The following suites were executed in the Octo lab (we will use Sepia in the future if nobody objects). > > upgrade:dumpling > ================ > ['45493'] > http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10694 - Known "Won't fix" > "Assertion: osd/Watch.cc: 290: FAILED assert(!cb)" > > *** Sam - pls confirm the "Won't fix" status. > > ['45495', '45496', '45498', '45499', '45500'] > http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10838 > "s3tests failed" > > *** Yehuda - need your verdict on s3tests. > > fs > ================ > All green ! > > rados > ================ > ['45054'] > http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10841 > "Issued certificate has expired" > *** Sandon pls comment. > > ['45168', '45169'] > http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10840 > coredump "ceph_test_filestore_idempotent_sequence" > *** Sam - pls comment > > ['45215'] > Missing packages - no ticket FYI > "Failed to fetch http://apt-mirror.front.sepia.ceph.com/archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/trusty-updates/universe/binary-i386/Packages Hash Sum mismatch" > > *** Zack, Sandon ? > > ceph-deploy > ================ > > Travis - pls suggest > In general I am not sure if we needed to test this - Sage? > > rbd > ================ > ['45365', '45366', '45367'] > http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10842 > "unable to connect to apt-mirror.front.sepia.ceph.com" > > ['45349', '45350', '45351', '45355', '45356', '45357', '45363'] > http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10802 > "error: image still has watchers" > (duplicate of 10680) > > *** Zack, Sandon, Josh - all environment noise, pls comment. > > rgw > ================ > ['45382', '45390'] > http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10843 > "s3tests failed" - could be related or duplicate of 10838 > > *** Yehuda - same as issues in upgrades? > > I am standing by for you analysis/replies and recommendations for next steps. > > Loic - let me know is you want to follow specific items in our backport testing process that I missed here. At the moment I have nothing. > PS: I would think that you could've wanted to assign the release ticket to QE (me) for validation and at this point I could've re-assigned it back to devel (you), a? If that's ok with you I'd rather check the tickets that you re-opened or filed at the end of the tests, all at once (just make sure such tickets have the backport field mentionning "dumpling" or I may miss them). However, if you need my input on a specific ticket feel free to ask. Thanks ! > Thx > YuriW > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Loic Dachary" <loic@xxxxxxxxxxx> > To: "Yuri Weinstein" <yweinste@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: "Ceph Development" <ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 9:05:31 AM > Subject: dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 ready for QE > > Hi Yuri, > > The dumpling integration branch for v0.67.12 as found at https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commits/dumpling-backports has been approved by Yehuda, Josh and Sam and is ready for QE. > > For the record, the head is https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commit/3944c77c404c4a05886fe8276d5d0dd7e4f20410 > > I think it would be best for the QE tests to use the dumpling-backports. The alternative would be to merge dumpling-backports into dumpling. However, since testing may take a long time and require more patches, it probably is better to not do that iterative process on the dumpling branch itself. As it is now, there already are a number of commits in the dumpling branch that should really be in the dumpling-backports: they do not belong to v0.67.11 and are going to be released in v0.67.12. In the future though, the dumpling branch will only receive commits that have been carefully tested and all the integration work will be on the dumpling-backports branch exclusively. So that third parties do not have to worry that the dumpling branch contains commits that have not been tested yet. > > Cheers > -- Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
