Let's do it! On Fri, 22 May 2015, Loic Dachary wrote: > 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 > >
