From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Loic Dachary Subject: Re: should we prepare to release firefly v0.80.10 ? Date: Tue, 05 May 2015 11:25:36 +0200 Message-ID: <55488C90.5090302@dachary.org> References: <55362279.5060105@dachary.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="jvXJUoC3JVMJorRJHLqwTb7bQSt9Udnfi" Return-path: Received: from mail2.dachary.org ([91.121.57.175]:57614 "EHLO smtp.dmail.dachary.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1031381AbbEEJZj (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 May 2015 05:25:39 -0400 In-Reply-To: <55362279.5060105@dachary.org> Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Sage Weil Cc: Ceph Development , "Shu, Xinxin" This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --jvXJUoC3JVMJorRJHLqwTb7bQSt9Udnfi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, Unless I'm mistaken it looks like http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11429 OSD::load_pgs: we need to handle the= case where an upgrade from earlier versions which ignored non-existent p= gs resurrects a pg with a prehistoric osdmap deserves to be in the next release. With this one, do you think v0.80.10 = should be published ? There was concerns about ceph_objectstore_tools and= thrashing but my understanding is that the nightlies ran enough tests in= the past two weeks to clear that. If there is not enough incentive to publish v0.80.10 at the moment we can= proceed with another batch of backports (about 10 of them pending) and t= est them. Cheers On 21/04/2015 12:12, Loic Dachary wrote: > Hi Sage, >=20 > The firefly branch has a number of fixes ( http://tracker.ceph.com/issu= es/11090#Release-information ) and has been used for upgrade tests in the= past few weeks. A few other issues have been backported since and are be= ing tested in the integration branch ( http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/110= 90#teuthology-run-commitb91bbb434e6363a99a632cf3841f70f1f2549f79-integrat= ion-branch-april-2015 ).=20 >=20 > Do you think these changes deserve a firefly v0.80.10 release ? Should = we ask each lead for their approval ? Or is it better to keep backporting= what needs to be and wait a few weeks ? >=20 > Cheers >=20 --=20 Lo=C3=AFc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre --jvXJUoC3JVMJorRJHLqwTb7bQSt9Udnfi 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) iEYEARECAAYFAlVIjJAACgkQ8dLMyEl6F23zwQCgvqKI6gL9vrOexSTaOSFxTqxM V44Ani+yRYBetettyx/QC6jposaCmK9/ =ecF4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --jvXJUoC3JVMJorRJHLqwTb7bQSt9Udnfi--