On Fri, 15 May 2015, Loic Dachary wrote: > Hi Sage, > > On 21/04/2015 17:52, Sage Weil wrote: > > The bulk of it is ceph-objectstore-tool, which is important to get into a > > release, IMO. David, are these being tested in the firefly thrashing > > tests yet? > > > > The only other one I'm worried about is > > > > 6fd3dfa osd: do not ignore deleted pgs on startup > > > > Sam, I assume the recent hammer upgrade issue is would bite firefly folks > > who upgrade too? > > A backport of "OSD::load_pgs: we need to handle the case where an upgrade from earlier versions which ignored non-existent pgs resurrects a pg with a prehistoric osdmap" http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11429 found at https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/4556 has been successfully tested on firefly at http://pulpito.ceph.com/loic-2015-05-13_00:01:26-rados-firefly-backports---basic-multi/ and in a rados suite run that completed today http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11090#rados. > > Provided https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/4556 is merged, do you think we should prepare to release firefly v0.80.10 ? As Yehuda mentioned the other open issue is the rgw multipart corruption. I'm guessing we want to include that? sage > > Cheers > > > > > sage > > > > > > On Tue, 21 Apr 2015, Loic Dachary wrote: > > > >> Hi Sage, > >> > >> The firefly branch has a number of fixes ( http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11090#Release-information ) and has been used for upgrade tests in the past few weeks. A few other issues have been backported since and are being tested in the integration branch ( http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11090#teuthology-run-commitb91bbb434e6363a99a632cf3841f70f1f2549f79-integration-branch-april-2015 ). > >> > >> Do you think these changes deserve a firefly v0.80.10 release ? Should we ask each lead for their approval ? Or is it better to keep backporting what needs to be and wait a few weeks ? > >> > >> Cheers > >> > >> -- > >> Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre > >> > > -- > Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre > >
