On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 11:27:26PM -0500, Sakshi Bansal wrote:
>
> > If anything is going in mainline I'd encourage the same to be backported
> > irrespective of the severity of the fix, so that's out of the equation.
> Will keep this is mind in future.
>
>
> > I'd like to stick to remove brick_up_status(). Please use the same in
> > all the places. You can include all these changes in the same backport
> > but please ensure the commit message explains the delta between mainline
> > and the backport.
> Since it is required to remove one of the redundant functions in upstream as well,
> would it be better to just backport patch #10954 and send a separate patch to remove
> the redundant function in upstream and on 3.7?
Yes, that should be good. Better to have just one version of the routine. Also, I
think Ravi found a bug in brick_up_status() [or the _1 version?]. So, that should
also be incorporated.
You'll probably get a conflict during backport as the routine was hand copied.
>
Thanks,
Venky
_______________________________________________
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
