On Wed, 30 Nov 2016, Abhishek L wrote: > > Abhishek L writes: > > > Sage Weil writes: > > > >> On Wed, 23 Nov 2016, Abhishek L wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Sage, Greg, > >>> > >>> > >>> Yuri Weinstein writes: > >>> > >>> > See updated status - http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/17487#note-32 > >>> > > >>> > Outstanding issues: > >>> > > >>> > knfs - http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16397 (same as in v10.2.3, Greg > >>> > pls review/approve, assumed Approved ?) > >>> > > >>> > upgrade/hammer-x (jewel) - http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/17847 ((Sage > >>> > pls review/approve, seems persistent, but maybe not a showstopper) > >>> > > >>> > upgrade/infernalis-x (jewel) - deprecated (Nathan is still working > >>> > to make it pass, see issues in the tacker summary above) > >>> > > >>> > Sage, jewel 10.2.4 can be released as soon as you agree with the > >>> > findings/summary. > >>> > >>> Do you think we're ready to release 10.2.4 yet? > >> > >> I'm reproducing http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/17847 with logs to make > >> sure this isn't a regression. > >> > >> We can ignore the infernalis runs. > >> > >> I think we can ignore the knfs selinux issue too.. Greg, can you confirm? > >> > > Added the prs 12001 & 12167 on top of the jewel branch and scheduled rados runs > > at > > http://pulpito.ceph.com/abhi-2016-11-29_10:22:25-rados-wip-jewel-10-2-4-distro-basic-smithi/ & https://github.com/ceph/ceph-qa-suite/pull/1292 avoids xenial for the rados upgrade tests (in jewel branch). The upgrade tests already explicitly call out trusty, so they should be fine. > > updated the tracker at http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/17851#note-17, > > with details of the test. I'll update the progress once the suite goes > > through > > Had around 11 tests fail from 296 scheduled, there were a couple of > valgrind issues on ceph-mon (which were seen at earlier runs on jewel as > well) and an s3test failure, rest of the issues were looking related to > infrastructure as they were failing to get specific version numbers from > gitbuilders. > > Reported this issue as: > > http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/18089 > > subsequent re runs are still failing with similar errors. The details > are updated at > > http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/17487#note-37 > > The upgrade suite has also failed with similar errors. Which one? Thanks! sage > > Overall it looks like we're close to cutting the release, as soon as we > can get through these infra errors > > Cheers, > Abhishek > > -- > 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 > > -- 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
