From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Loic Dachary Subject: CephFS and the next firefly release Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 15:18:51 +0100 Message-ID: <54F1CE4B.5020004@dachary.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="CVas8n6VLMfjLfEKKQesTn45KEkla5w5M" Return-path: Received: from mail2.dachary.org ([91.121.57.175]:50558 "EHLO smtp.dmail.dachary.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752383AbbB1OSx (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Feb 2015 09:18:53 -0500 Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Gregory Farnum Cc: Ceph Development This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --CVas8n6VLMfjLfEKKQesTn45KEkla5w5M Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Greg, The fs teuthology suite for the next firefly release as found in https://= github.com/ceph/ceph/commits/firefly-backports came back with three failu= res : http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10641#fs. Do you think it is ready f= or QE to start their own round of testing ? Cheers P.S. I'll include the fs suite as part of the pre-QE round of testing fro= m now on, unless you think it is redundant or not useful. --=20 Lo=C3=AFc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre --CVas8n6VLMfjLfEKKQesTn45KEkla5w5M Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlTxzksACgkQ8dLMyEl6F21TLQCgiO1owDfJTUz0ukij5P3sG5go ZQIAn3wqQWGiwV7gUKBJZPtZlhCBLYpt =tw2R -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --CVas8n6VLMfjLfEKKQesTn45KEkla5w5M--