Yes, just wanted those two fixes we discussed. :) On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Loic Dachary <loic@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Greg, > > Do you think the hammer branch is ready for QE to start their own round of testing ? > > Cheers > > On 04/02/2016 12:44, Loic Dachary wrote: >> Hi Greg, >> >> On 03/02/2016 16:23, Gregory Farnum wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Loic Dachary <loic@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> Hi Greg, >>>> >>>> The next hammer release as found at https://github.com/ceph/ceph/tree/hammer passed the fs suite (http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/13356#note-25). A more recent run showed 3 failures and I'm not sure how to interpret them ( http://pulpito.ceph.com/loic-2016-01-29_03:02:05-fs-hammer---basic-multi/ ). >>>> >>>> Do you think the hammer branch is ready for QE to start their own round of testing ? Or should the above errors be investigated first ? >>> >>> Well, one of them looks to be an infrastructure issue of some kind. >>> You appear to have figured out the fsstress one >>> (http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/14584#change-65185), and the fsx one >>> is http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/14384. I'd get that quick backport >> >> Thanks for the pointer :-) (and to Nathan for backporting). >> >>> in as well (it's just a change to the qa script to point at a working >>> version of the repo). >> >> Do you think the hammer branch is ready for QE to start their own round of testing ? >> >> Cheers >> >>> -Greg >>> -- >>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in >>> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >>> >> > > -- > Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
