Re: should we prepare to release firefly v0.80.10 ?

[Loic Dachary <loic@dachary.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1829 bytes --]

Hi Sage,

On 21/04/2015 17:52, Sage Weil wrote:
> The bulk of it is ceph-objectstore-tool, which is important to get into a 
> release, IMO.  David, are these being tested in the firefly thrashing 
> tests yet?
> 
> The only other one I'm worried about is
> 
> 6fd3dfa osd: do not ignore deleted pgs on startup
> 
> Sam, I assume the recent hammer upgrade issue is would bite firefly folks 
> who upgrade too?

A backport of "OSD::load_pgs: we need to handle the case where an upgrade from earlier versions which ignored non-existent pgs resurrects a pg with a prehistoric osdmap" http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11429 found at https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/4556 has been successfully tested on firefly at http://pulpito.ceph.com/loic-2015-05-13_00:01:26-rados-firefly-backports---basic-multi/ and in a rados suite run that completed today http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11090#rados.

Provided https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/4556 is merged, do you think we should prepare to release firefly v0.80.10 ?

Cheers

> 
> sage
> 
> 
> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015, Loic Dachary wrote:
> 
>> Hi Sage,
>>
>> The firefly branch has a number of fixes ( http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/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 being tested in the integration branch ( http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11090#teuthology-run-commitb91bbb434e6363a99a632cf3841f70f1f2549f79-integration-branch-april-2015 ). 
>>
>> 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 ?
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> -- 
>> Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
>>

-- 
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]