From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Loic Dachary Subject: Re: Firefly integration branch : OK Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 00:35:42 +0200 Message-ID: <55415CBE.5050009@dachary.org> References: <553DEDD3.2030202@dachary.org> <55415B8D.9050309@dachary.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="2xnNKb3QXVKJKKLmfX8oBEGint4encirf" Return-path: Received: from mail2.dachary.org ([91.121.57.175]:54855 "EHLO smtp.dmail.dachary.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751252AbbD2Wfq (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Apr 2015 18:35:46 -0400 In-Reply-To: <55415B8D.9050309@dachary.org> Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: "Shu, Xinxin" Cc: Ceph Development This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --2xnNKb3QXVKJKKLmfX8oBEGint4encirf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi again, Sam reviewed the three backports you did and approved. They have been mer= ged and the integration branch is now merged in firefly entirely. git log --no-merges --oneline ceph/firefly..ceph/firefly-backports (shows nothing) We can begin another round of testing as soon as you have prepared the ne= xt firefly-backports branch. Just let me know and I'll push it to the git= builders on your behalf. Cheers On 30/04/2015 00:30, Loic Dachary wrote: > Hi, >=20 > I took the liberty of ping'ing Sam on IRC a few minutes ago on your beh= alf (he is the original author of the three backports you did). He just g= ot back from India, I could not miss the opportunity ;-) >=20 > Cheers >=20 > On 27/04/2015 10:05, Loic Dachary wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I saw this morning the firefly integration branch passed rados and rbd= suites :-)=20 >> >> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11090#rados >> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11090#rbd >> >> The issue has been updated accordingly. It means the following pull re= quests passed: >> >> $ git log --merges --oneline 12143ff9b25fdd96f8d1a9cecb1329c7f354d414.= =2Eb91bbb434e6363a99a632cf3841f70f1f2549f79 >> b91bbb4 Merge 4245: librbd: snap_remove should ignore -ENOENT errors >> 6245bed Merge 4206: librbd: acquire cache_lock before refreshing paren= t >> ef08aa9 Merge 4185: FAILED assert(soid < scrubber.start || soid >=3D s= crubber.end) >> ae1b18a Merge 3963: Rados.shutdown() dies with Illegal instruction (co= re dumped) >> 056db0f Merge 4385: osd: ENOENT on clone >> e4b1fd1 Merge 4384: pg stuck stale after create with activation delay >> 597124b Merge 4383: erasure-code-profile set races with erasure-code-p= rofile rm >> b7bbd43 Merge 4382: osd/PGLog.h: 279: FAILED assert(log.log.size() =3D= =3D log_keys_debug.size()) >> >> Ouf ot these, three are backports ready to be reviewed by their origin= al authors: >> >> 056db0f Merge 4385: osd: ENOENT on clone https://github.com/ceph/ceph/= pull/4385 >> e4b1fd1 Merge 4384: pg stuck stale after create with activation delay = https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/4384 >> b7bbd43 Merge 4382: osd/PGLog.h: 279: FAILED assert(log.log.size() =3D= =3D log_keys_debug.size()) >> >> The simplest way would be to ask for their review with a comment in th= e pull request, with a reference to the test suite results so they know i= t passed the suites. Will you have time to do this today ? If you don't h= ave time, just let me know and I'll do it for you. >> >> Cheers >> >=20 --=20 Lo=C3=AFc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre --2xnNKb3QXVKJKKLmfX8oBEGint4encirf 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) iEYEARECAAYFAlVBXL4ACgkQ8dLMyEl6F22gjwCgrwlRWr/iT03jJl0m0e8MOuZ+ O4wAoLmcGFJXnUNm+X72W2Sk30ssQMGi =+RwV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --2xnNKb3QXVKJKKLmfX8oBEGint4encirf--