Re: should we prepare to release firefly v0.80.10 ?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Ping ?

On 18/05/2015 14:47, Loic Dachary wrote:
> Hi Sage,
> 
> The following are now in the firefly branch. 
> 
> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/4697 which includes fixes for http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11622 and http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11604
> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/4556 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  
> 
> Do you think we should prepare to release firefly v0.80.10 ? If yes the branch will be handed over to QE for further testing.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> On 15/05/2015 22:19, Loic Dachary wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 15/05/2015 21:05, Sage Weil wrote:
>>> 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?
>>
>> Yes, we will include and test the http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11622 and http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11604 backports.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>>
>>
> 

-- 
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


[Index of Archives]     [CEPH Users]     [Ceph Large]     [Information on CEPH]     [Linux BTRFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]
  Powered by Linux